FROM THE INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
”THE WORLD BEYOND WORDS”
Müjde KER-DİNÇER, Ph.D.
kerm@iletisim.ege.edu.tr
Ege University
(Turkey)
Abstract
In today’s world, mostly according to requirements of our professions, we encounter people
from other societies, or cultures more often than ever. Sometimes even how hard we try to
communicate effectively we face differences in language, values, norms, emotional
expressions, rituals, rules, expectations, family background, life experiences, and nonverbal
communication (the world beyond words) usages as intercultural barriers.
Nonverbal communication includes all stimuli in a communicative setting generated by an
individual and the individual’s use of environment. Some of the major categories in the
study of nonverbal communication include: kinesics, oculesics, haptics, proxemics and
chronemics. Nonverbal communication is a complex web of meaning that is highly culturespecific. In other words, different cultures have different meanings for the same nonverbal
behaviors. The handicap of intercultural communication lies under this topic. Since most
people are unaware of their own cultural patterns of nonverbal communication, they are
unprepared to deal with the patterns of other cultures. So to overcome barriers when
communicating in intercultural settings, one has to understand how is said, not just what
is said.
In this paper the main aim is to look at the nonverbal communication studies within the
perspective of intercultural communication. This study will focus on the understanding
intercultural communication, nonverbal communication, theoretical approaches on
intercultural and nonverbal communication, and nonverbal- intercultural communication
and focus on one theory. Also to explain the importance of nonverbal-intercultural
communication an example on haptics with the help of research results will be observed.
Another aim and hope of this paper is, since Turkish literature lacks this kind of
information, the subjects discussed here will give clues and arise interest on nonverbalintercultural communication studies.
FROM THE INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ”THE WORLD BEYOND WORDS”
Introduction
Long ago in history, religious leaders such as Mohammad, Christ and Buddha, philosophers
such as Aristotle and Socrates and playwrights such as Sophocles and Shakespeare
mentioned the importance of speaking “the other manʹsʹ language and adapting our
communicative techniques to the audience background”. (Hart, 2004) Even though these
ideas lacked systematic approaches on what exactly happens in intercultural interactions,
they were the first footsteps taken in intercultural communication history. In today’s large
scaled world though, meeting people from “foreign” countries with “different” cultures is
an important aspect of communication life and because of this intercultural communication
plays an important role more than ever.
Nonverbal communication on the other hand, is part of language, which is typically used to
cover phenomena in kinesics, paralanguage, proxemics, haptics, chronemics, physical
appearance and artifacts. By analyzing nonverbal cues, one can enhance his/her
understanding of what is really being said when people talk. Also the nonverbal level can
help people to define the nature of each relationship they are share with someone else. So
the relationship between nonverbal and intercultural communication starts at this point.
Since the message –whether verbal or nonverbal- is the central feature of the interchange
between people of different cultures, it can be the strongest as a link between two different
communication types. In other words, especially nonverbal messages stand out with their
originality as a kind of code system in intercultural interactions and that is the reason why
they are taken in account. But on this level another problem occurs. Nonverbal behaviors
turn into unconsciously applied unspoken communication codes that are unconsciously
understood by cultural members who share these codes. Since each party in the intercultural
communication use their own system of nonverbal messages, cultural differences on
interpretation of nonverbal cues obviously prevail. To overcome a burden like this, in any
intercultural interaction, the nonverbal cues -this process is commonly known nonverbalintercultural communication- must be taken into account and observed even before saying
“hello” or shaking hands to greet someone. Also to gain a better understanding on
nonverbal communication and intercultural communication relationship, the theories on
both communication types must be observed.
Intercultural Communication
The basic form of human activity is known as communication. So intercultural
communication (ICC) as a form of human activity, to no surprise, is not new. Even though it
was on a small scale, intercultural communication occurred long ago when culturally
diverse people first interacted. Within the past few centuries, however, the number of
interactions between culturally diverse people has greatly increased due to the increase in
world population and the advances in technology. These all together began bringing
increasing dimensions of intercultural contact and the need to study ICC -which lacked
systematic documentation.
828
The first works on ICC began with the establishment of a conceptual framework by Edward
T. Hall and others at the Foreign Service Institute in the early 1950s. The events of the 1960s
provided a rich practical research environment in which to test (through training) the ideas
previously developed in ICC study. Starting in the 1970s specialized ICC courses, societies
and journals were established, signaling the fieldʹs reception of a first paradigm. In the late
1970s ICC scholars sought greater understanding of what ICC is and what the field should
include in its study. The field quickly matured by the early 1980s as scholars such as William
Gudykunst and others began organizing and developing ICC theories in order to push the
field forward. In the 1990s theory construction and testing continued. (Hart, 2004) When the
time has come to the 2000s there is still left much to be done on the worldwide scale.
To go further with ICC studies, first a definition of ICC must be made. Lustig and Koester,
(1993) define ICC as a “symbolic, interpretive, transactional, contextual process in which the
degree of difference between people is large and important enough to create dissimilar
interpretations and expectations about what are regarded as competent behaviors that
should be used to create shared meanings.” According to the above definition, there is a
degree of interculturality (from most to least intercultural) in a given instance of
communication These concepts are to be clear because, especially on international
communication and cross-cultural communication types, many communication experts
debated on whether they are the same or different communication types than ICC.
“Intra-cultural Communication (the least intercultural) is communication
between members of the same culture. It includes all forms of
communication between members of racial, ethnic or other co-cultures.
Interracial Communication is communication between members of different
races (which pertains to physical characteristic.) Interracial communication
may or may not be intercultural.
Interethnic Communication is communication between members of the same
race but different ethnic backgrounds.
International Communication is communication between nations and
governments rather than between individuals.
Cross-cultural Communication is a study of a particular idea or concept
within many cultures to compare one culture to another on the aspect of
interest. While intercultural communication involves interactions among
people from different cultures, cross-cultural communication involves a
comparison of interactions among people from the same culture to those
from another.” (Ekachai, 2004)
Returning back to the ICC definition, this kind of communication occurs when a member of
one culture, for consumption by a member of another culture, produces a message that must
be understood. (Samovar & Porter, 1994,8) In other words intercultural communication takes
place when a message produced by someone of Culture ‘A’ must be understood by someone
who is not part of Culture ‘A’, say a person from Culture ‘B’. On this point of ICC definition
researchers had to find an answer to a question “Is there a way to measure the relative
absence of agreement between any two patterns of communication or systems of
meanings?” Geert Hofgtede studied multinational corporations in more than fifty countries
to find the answer. He concluded that there are four crucial dimensions on which to
compare cultures. (Ting-Toomey, 1999, 180-200; Griffin, 2000, 390-391)
829
1.
2.
3.
4.
Power distance- the extent to which the less powerful members of society accept that
power is distributed unequally and these members give priority treatment and
respect to people who are in high-status positions. According to Hofstede (1991) the
Philippines, together with Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, and
many Arab countries have been identified as large power distance cultures. In
business communications subordinates know their ʺhumbleʺ roles, on the other
hand superiors and managers know their ʺsuperiorʺ role acts. In comparison, TingToomey (1999) found out in small power distance cultures such as Denmark,
Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and the US, subordinates expect to be respected
and valued based more on personal attributes than on their by position or titles.
Masculinity- This dimension has been controversial because many people feel it is
sexist. Actually it emphasizes the clearly defined gender roles with male values of
success, money, and things dominant in society. Hofstede discovered that Japan
rated high on masculine dimensions (males expect an ʺin-chargeʺ role). In contrast,
countries like Norway and Sweden have a stronger feminine dimension, which
means that roles are more fluid between males and females. (Ting-Toomey, 2004)
Uncertainty avoidance- the extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguity and
create beliefs and institutions to try to avoid it. Uncertainty includes the doubts
humans have about their abilities to predict the outcomes of their encounters with
strangers. According to this dimension of culture Americans living in the US have
low uncertainty, and Philippinos have extremely high uncertainty degree. (Griffin,
2000, 396-398)
Individualism- people look out for themselves and their immediate family as opposed
to identifying with a larger group that is responsible for taking care of them in
exchange for group loyalty, in other words collectivism. In other words,
individualism refers to the broad value tendencies of people in a culture to
emphasize the individual identity over group identity, and individual rights over
group obligations. Collectivism emphasizes group identity over individual identity
and in-group-oriented concerns over individual wants and desires. (Ting-Toomey,
1999, 195-198)
Many researchers agree on Hofstede’s distinction between individualism and collectivism as
the crucial dimension of cultural variability. These dynamics –collectivism and
individualism- have been the subjects of cross-cultural psychologists, management people,
and communication researchers. In addition to Hofstede’s culture comparison studies,
Edward T. Hall was the first to label the communication style of collectivist cultures highcontext and the style of individualistic cultures low-context.
The cultural influences and experiences of the receiver in the interaction may be very
different than the cultural influences and experiences of the sender of the message. In this
kind of communication the context (climate) in which the communication takes place
influences the effectiveness of the communication. Context refers to the entire collection of
stimuli surrounding the communication, and how much of stimuli have meaning in the
communication. Cultures can be referred to by the level of importance given to the context
of the communication and each culture develop its own rules that govern communication.
(McGahn, 2003) Again when returned to Hall’s research findings, the distinction between
high-context and low-context cultures have to be discussed on to make a clear
understanding of ICC in general.
830
A high-context culture is one in which much of the information is contained in the context or
in the person –for example, information that is shared through previous communications,
through assumptions that participants hold about each other, and through shared
experiences. (DeVito, 1995, 30-32) In high-context cultures words alone do not convey the
message. In this kind of culture, communication emphasizes how intention or meaning can
be best expressed through the context (e.g., social roles, positions) and nonverbal channels
(e.g., pauses, silence, tone of voice) of the verbal message
A low-context culture is one in which most information is explicitly stated in the verbal
message, as well as in formal transactions in written form. (DeVito, 1995, 30-32) To formulate
it in another way, in low-context cultures words are the message and the context is
unimportant.
The distinctions between high-and low-context cultures can be as summarized from Hall’s
studies, as it follows: High-context cultures have; much half-hidden and implicit messages,
much nonverbal cues, internalized messages, reserved reactions, distinct in-groups and outgroups, strong bonds between people, high commitment, and open and flexible time. On the
other hand low-context cultures are known with their; much open and clearly expressed
messages, verbal details, plainly coded messages, reactions on the surface, flexible in-groups
and out-groups, fragile people bonds, low commitment, and highly organized time (Ekachia,
2004)
When looked at high-and low-context cultures through out the world, researchers found out
that different cultures take place on a continuum ranging from high to low. Samovar and
Porter, (1994) made a mind-sets continuum of 12 different cultures according to their level of
high or low contextual approaches in ICC. According to the two researchers’ findings the
continuum starts with high-context cultures such as Japanese being the first on the highness
list, then Chinese, Mid-East, Greek, Mexican, Hispanic, and Italian. The continuum then
continues on the scale to the low-context cultures such as Italian, English, French, American,
Scandinavian, and ends with German culture being the most low-context culture of all.
The ICC breakdowns most frequently occur on misunderstandings of high- and low-context
system differences. If a person ‘A’, assumes and acts out of a high-context mind-set, while
the communication partner person ‘B’expects explanations rather than nonverbal cues, in
other words if person ‘B’ looks for a low-context condition, an intercultural communication
accident will probably occur. These assumptions are rarely understood and much of these
intercultural misunderstandings are left undiscussed and unsolved between intercultural
participants. But an important point here is as Hall says: “the people in every culture
communicate both ways. The difference is one of focus.”(Hall, 1989, 130) A Japanese coming
from a high-context culture may have a message context orientation, a German from a lowcontext culture on the other hand may rely more on the message content. But this is no strict
rule, people’s mind-sets may be influenced by their cultural contexts, in addition to it,
people have their own views of the world and values. So when communicating
interculturally there are many aspects that have to be taken into account.
831
Nonverbal Communication: “The World Beyond Words”
People have long been aware of the importance of nonverbal communication (NVC). And
yet why nonverbal communication can be so powerful has remained somewhat a mystery.
NVC has been one of the most fascinating areas of communication research because it helps
to give meaning to behaviors often outside the level of consciousness.
Even though using nonverbal cues in communicating is as old as our species, scientific
understanding of it dates mainly from the last few decades, when social psychologists and
anthropologists working mostly in the United States began making detailed analyses of its
components. There were a few, however, who made earlier studies as pioneers like John
Bulver’s Chrinologia: or the Natural Language of the Hand (1644), William Wundt’s
Volkerpsycologie ‘Ethnic Psychology’ (1900), Charles Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals (1872) and Desmond Morris’ The Naked Ape (1969). (Lambert and the Diagram
Group, 1996, 22-23) And some of the most known researhers on NVC studies are; Ray L.
Birdwhistell, Albert E. Scheflen, Paul Ekman, Edward T. Hall (The Silent Language, 1959),
Iranus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Mark Knapp, Albert Mehrabian and V. Wallace Friesen. These and
many other communication researchers have made major advances in unlocking the role of
nonverbal behavior in social interaction. Like the studies made on ICC, there are still very
much work to be done to clearify the reasons “why” and “how” humans do the things the way
they do on the worldwide scale.
The term NVC designates all the kinds of human responses not expressed in words. NVC is
the process by which nonverbal behaviours are used, either singly or in combination with
verbal behaviours, in the exchange and interpretation of messages within a given situation
or context. (Mead, 2002)
NVC includes a wide range of behaviors such as communication by means of space,
gestures, facial expressions, touching, vocal variations, and silence, for example. In every
day encounters NVC can take one or more forms and it can be said that whether humans are
aware of it, all communicate nonverbally. Theorists Albert Mehrabian, Mark Knapp, and
Ray Birdwhistell agree that in a normal two-person conversation the verbal channel carries
less than 35% of the message’s social meaning; this means that more than 65 % of the
meaning is communicated nonverbally. (Kwal Gamble and Gamble, 1990, 103)
There are numerous NVC channels that all contribute to the total pattern of human
communication which carries the social meaning. Research suggests that there are seven
commonly used channels for conveying messages. Each of these channels has some unique
properties that influence the communication process. The seven are; (1) kinesics, (2) physical
appearance, (3) paralanguage, (4) haptics, (5) proxemics, (6) chronemics, and (7) artifacts.
These will each be considered briefly before turning to the communicative functions that
nonverbal cues perform in ICC.
Kinesics is the science of eye, facial expressions and body motions in relation to
communicative interaction. Most kinesic behaviors occur in concert with the total context of
the speech at any one moment of an utterance (Dodd, 1985, 11) Kinesics is generally grouped
into the following categories; posture, the inclination of the torso; head movements, like
nodding and shaking; facial mimicry; eye gaze (oculesics), the movement and fixation of the
eyes; hand and arm gestures- as commonly known as body language-; motions of the body
832
parts; and the movement of the legs. “Kinesic systems vary from culture to culture in a
manner not dissimilar to language systems, and have their own underlying structures and
their relationship to external variables.” (Raffler-Engel, 1980, 3)
Physical appearance is the study of general attractiveness, body and breath, odors, and height
is also in the field nonverbal communication. Physical appearance also refers to all those
attributes of image, such as attractiveness, race, height, weight, body shape, hairstyle, dress
and artifacts.
Paralanguage (vocalics) is the study of the vocal effects done to accompany words except for
the words themselves, refers to all those nonverbal cues to be found in a speaker’s voice
such as volume, pitch, inotation contours, empty and filled (hesitation forms) pauses,
phonation ratio (the ratio between speech and pauses), stress, rhythm, and tempo. Vocal
behavior can lead to personality attributions based on pitch, breathiness, volume, rate, and
variety. It is also largely responsible for the success of sarcasm and the regulation of
interactions through turn-requesting and turn-yielding vocal cues. (Berko, Wolvin and
Wolvin, 1981, 197-198)
Haptics is the study of touching behavior. Haptics can be in many forms. In addition to
conveying nurturance and caring, touches can be; positive affect touches, playful touches,
control touches, ritualistic touches, hybrid touches, and task-related touches. (Masterson,
2001)
Proxemics is the study of how humans use and perceive, structure, and utilize their social
and personal space. Edward T. Hall in 1968 classified space on the basis of how that space is
used in interactions; he posited the categories public, social, personal, and intimate. As
animals, humans exhibit a need for personal territory, just as our wilder relatives do. Oneʹs
ʺpersonal spaceʺ is which one expects not to be invaded (except by those with whom one
shares an intimate relationship). (Lambert and the Diagram Group, 1995, 59-63)
Chronemics is the study of the use and perception of time is a communication phenomenon that
varies widely across cultures. Being punctual is held in high regard in many cultures, and to
keep someone waiting can be seen as a personal insult (displaced time orientation). On the
other hand some cultures do not worry about the punctuality of appointments (diffused time
orientation). In chronemics there is also four basic time orientations which are called
psychological time. Past, time-line, future, and present are called psychological time, which
can affect the structure, content, and urgency of communication. (DeVito, 1995, 255-256)
Artifacts is the study of all elements people add to their bodies - such as earrings, tatoos,
watches, make-up, sunglasses etc.-, and other elements that act as extensions of self -such as
cars, offices etc. Also details of spatial organization, size and volume of space, arrangement
and selection of objects, lighting, color, temperature and noise all have discernible effects on
nonverbal behavior under the category artifacts. (Tubbs and Moss, 1991, 165-167)
The nonverbal codes, taken together -because it would be a mistake to assume that the
nonverbal codes operate independently of one another or that they have distinct different
purposes- perform a number of communication functions. These functions can be grouped
into five general categories; (1) symbolic displays, (2) meta-messages, (3) structuring
interaction, (4) self-presentation, and (5) social influence.
833
A great part of NVC occurs in the form of specific cues or patterns of cues that have
conventionally recognized meaning for receivers as being symbolic in nature. These cues are
called symbolic displays and can be universal and culture-specific. Universal displays are
those that are universally recognized across cultures, such behaviors as smiling. Such
displays are an important facet of communication because they act as universal language
where verbal communication fails. Culture-specific displays, on the other hand, are the
number of gestures and expressions that have direct verbal equivalents such as emblems.
Emblems have clearly understood meaning within the culture and are often substituted for
verbal expressions. (Ekman, 1980, 89)
The second function of NVC is acting as meta-messages by clarifying verbal statements
through repeating (what was said verbally); complementing (what was said verbally);
contradicting (what was said verbally); substituting (for what would be said verbally), and
regulating (managing the communication event). (DeVito, 1995, 102-106) The nonverbal
codes also function as meta-messages by supplying relational messages and attitudinal
messages. (Ruffner and Burgoon, 1981, 75-76) Kinesics, paralanguage, physical appearance,
haptics, proxemics, artifacts, and chronemics may all signal such relational consideration as
liking, attraction, credibility, and status, as well as attitudes toward what is being said.
Another major function of NVC is the structuring of interactions. Contextual features are
important sources as clues to what roles people are expected to perform in any situation.
Kinesic, paralinguistic, proxemic, and haptic cues are used to regulate the flow of
interaction. They determine whose turn is to speak, how long each person will speak, and
even what people will talk about.
The fourth communication role of nonverbal behaviors perform, is self-presentation. Selfpresentation is the impressions people attempt to create for others, in other words their
personal or professional images. Many of the human interactions can be viewed as a drama,
with each person performing a role for the audience. In this aspect nonverbal cues are
important to judge if the actor/actress is presenting a successful act or not. Without any
notice, an actor/actress through his/her nonverbal behaviors can leak unintended
information about his/herself that can be in counter to the image they are trying to project.
When self-presenting nonverbal cues may either confirm or disconfirm a performance.
Finally, nonverbal cues may be enlisted in efforts to enhance learning, attitude change, and
behavior change. A number of strategies involving nonverbal behaviors can be used to
influence the actions of others. Liking and approval cues, credibility appeals, power and
status appeals, threat cues, attractiveness manipulations, and violations of expectations have
all been found effective as modification techniques. (Ruffner and Burgoon, 1981, 76-77)
In sum, much NVC defines the social context in which messages are sent and received, thus
making their interpretations possible. It is NVC that establishes an essential difference
between human interaction and the interaction that takes place among computers via
networks.
834
Theoretical Approaches On Intercultural Communication and Nonverbal Communication
During the history of communication theories, among many models on ICC and NVC, five
main theories –which were inspired from the earlier theories especially from the ones on
interpersonal communication- were introduced and accepted by communication researchers
in wide range. First of all the theories on ICC are; Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory,
and Face-Negotiation Theory. The theories on NVC are; Expectancy Violations Theory,
Symbolic Interactionism, and Coordinated Meaning Management Theory. These theories are
still the first theories that should be looked up when dealing with ICC and NVC issues in
general.
The theory that will be first mentioned under the ICC theories is Anxiety/Uncertainty
Management Theory (AUM) by William B. Gudykunst (1985). Gudykunst’ AUM focuses on
encounters between cultural in-groups and strangers, and he tries to explain his theory with
the help of 47 axioms∗. Whenever two people meet for the first time, uncertainty accompanies
by feelings of uneasiness known as anxiety, in other words uncertainty and anxiety are
interrelated. Taking this assumption as a base, according to AUM theory intercultural
encounters are characterized by high levels of uncertainty and anxiety, especially when
cultural variability is high. Effective communication is made possible by people ability to
mindfully manage their anxiety and reduce their uncertainty about themselves and the people
with whom they are communicating (Gudykunst, 2004). In other words, Gudykunstʹs AUM
theory maintains that “individualsʹ attempt to reduce uncertainty in initial interactions with
strangers by creating proactive predictions and retroactive explanations about otherʹs
behavior.” (Gudykunst, 1990, 25-26)
The second theory that will be mentioned under ICC is the Face-Negotiation Theory by Stella
Ting-Toomey. Ting-Toomeyʹs work focuses on face-negotiation and conflict styles. TingToomey sees face∗∗ as symbolic and as a claimed sense of self-respect in a relational
situation. Face is a universal phenomenon because everyone would like to be respected;
everyone needs a sense of self-respect. But how to manage the strategies in maintaining,
saving, or honoring oneʹs face differs across cultures depending on their contextual frame as
high-or low-context cultures. The low versus high context framework in face-negotiation has
been used in Ting-Toomeyʹs research –mainly- in the US, Japan, South Korea, China, and
Taiwan. (Ting-Toomey, 2004) The concepts she explores can be listed as; face saving, face
giving, face losing, recovery from face loss, conflict, dimensions of face and face issues such
as shame in general.
After giving brief explanations of wide-range expected theories on ICC, theories on NVC
will be taken to account. One of the main theories on NVC is the Expectancy∗∗∗ Violations
Theory (EVT) by Judee Burgoon. Burgoon in her early studies brought together two
components in this NVC theory: proxemics and kinesics. The name of the theory then was
Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory (NVEVT). The theory was focusing on the space
∗
AUM theory started with 47 axioms, in later versions Gudykunst added more axioms. For example
the 1993 version contained 94 axioms, with one cross-cultural axiom for each axiom in the main part of
the theory, and later in the 1998 version he outlined how it can be used to design intercultural
adjustment training programs with 49 axioms. (Gudykunst, 2004)
∗∗
Toomey refers to face as the projected image of one’s self in a relational situation. (Griffin, 2000, 410)
∗∗∗
Expectancy as used here is what is predicted to occur rather than what is desired.
835
between individuals, ʺproperʺ distance to be maintained (from contexts and relationships),
what happens when the boundaries are crossed and also on kinesic behaviors.
To gain a better understanding of Burgoon’ early theory named as NVEVT, first of all Hall’s
studies on proxemics must be observed. Hall was the first researcher who coined the ʺspaceʺ
issue, proxemics in year 1968. Proxemics refer to the study of people’s use of space as a
special elaboration of culture and also includes the space around the personal body, a car, or
the layout of an office or home. Even though Hall believed that most spatial interpretation is
outside our awareness, according to his findings on how to become an effective
communicator, one has to adjust his/her nonverbal behavior to conform the communicative
rules of his/her communication partner. Hallʹs 4-step model labels the personal space in the
US as expectations known as proxemic zones in spatial communication. (Hall, 1989, 120)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Intimate distance: 0 to 18 inches.
Personal distance: 18 inches to 4 feet.
Social distance: 4 to 10 feet.
Public distance: 10 feet to infinity.
Like Hall, Burgoon defines personal space as the invisible, variable volume of space
surrounding an individual that defines individualʹs preferred distance from others.
According to her findings, the size and shape of our personal space depends upon cultural
norms and individual preferences. Personal space is always a compromise between the
conflicting approach-avoidance needs that we as humans have for affiliation and privacy.
Burgoon’s original NVEVT was concerned only with spatial violations. Burgoon believed
that crossing over the threat threshold that forms the boundary of the intimate distance
causes physical and psychological discomfort. (Burgoon, 1978, 129-142) But by the mid1980’s, Burgoon realized that proxemic behavior is part of an interconnected system of
nonlinguistic cues. It no longer made sense to study personal distance in isolation. She began
to apply the model to a host of other nonverbal variables - facial expression, eye contact,
touch, and body lean for example. She has now expanded her theory to emotional, marital
and ICC. Burgoon to demonstrate her interest in a broad range of variables, she has dropped
the qualifier “nonverbal” from her theory. (Griffin, 2000, 78-83). Also with the more recent
research made by Lannutti and colleagues, the framework of EVT has gained more clarity
(McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2004).
Symbolic Interactionism by George Herbert Mead ties in with the EVT. This theory is a wideranging one, that links language with perception, thinking, self-concept, and culture. Mead
regarded the ability to communicate with words as the essence of being. Even though the
main foot steps of the symbolic interactionism theory was taken by Mead, due to his lacking
set forth his studies in a book, Herbert Blumer –one of his mentors- was the one who coined
the term symbolic interactionism and formulated Mead’s ideas. (Griffin, 2000, 54) Mead
defines the self as a special kind of mental process in which a person is able to take oneself as
an object and self is a function of language. The ability to take oneself as an object develops
in childhood through two key stages; the play stage where the child learns to play the role of
someone else, and the game stage where the child learns to play the role of everyone
involved in a game. After these crucial stages of self-development, the child can take the
position of the generalized other, or can see him/herself from the perspective of a
community. When self-development is complete, the child acquires the ability to distinguish
between the “I” and the “me”. The “I” is the basis of individual personality that is an
836
immediate and unthinking response. The “me” is the phase of self that sees itself from the
perspective of community values and expectations. (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2004)
“Me” means the total of group’s, or “others’”, attitudes; that is “social” part of individual
and “I” is the source of spontaneous, unpredictable behaviors that show individuals’
reactions to social stimuli. In other words, “Me” is set of systematized group’s attitudes, to
those individual reacts as “I”. (Symbolic Interactionism, 2004)
Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) theory approaches nonverbal communication
from a social construction viewpoint. W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen, theorists of
CMM, are convinced that people in conversation co-construct their own social realties and
are simultaneously shaped by the words they create. Being social constructionists Pearce and
Cronen agree that the events and objects of the social world are made rather than found.
They also suggest, effective communication occurs when a person and the others in
interaction are able to coordinate their actions sufficiently so that both sides can involve in
conversations that can comprise their social worlds and these communicators with multicultural attitudes are called cosmopolitan communicators by Pearce. (Pearce, 1994, 198)
According to Pearce, people’s lives are made up of stories told, stories they lived, and stories
that are unexpressed. The speech act which plays a large part in CMM involves and episode,
relationship, self-concept, and the culture in which shape what we say and others have said.
Every social utterance has four simultaneous conversations that link the speech act to the
episode, relationship, self-concept, and culture. (Pearce and Pearce, 2004) Coordination is the
core of conversations between people because it is the process by which people come
together in conversation to exhibit what they feel is necessary, noble, and good and to stay
away of things they fear, hate, or despise. Mystery is the final component of the three and
deals with a sense of wonder for stories not yet heard. CMM uses this term to tell us that
there is more to life than facts that lead us into every day life. (Pearce, 1989, 150-170)
Nonverbal-Intercultural Communication
All of the theories mentioned above have one thing in common; their interest on the
importance of language, conversation, being effective communicators or cosmopolitan
communicators, self, the normal feeling of anxiety and uncertainty, face concept and many
more. Even though the theories may have slight differences between them, the main theme
of all is to understand -or at least partially enhance the knowledge on- the human behavior.
Since it is a hard process, to achieve this goal, beside many other things, the tendency to
label people from other cultures as “strangers” or “foreigners” must be eliminated and this
can be done -to some extent- by the help of interpreting NVC cues as correct as possible
especially on the ICC level. So to be able to enhance the mutual understanding on the
relationship between ICC and NVC, I adopted an eclectic perspective of the five theories
mentioned above, but when looked through this perspective then I realized that the CMM
contains answers to my questions on NVC and ICC relationship. So from this point on, I will
try to explain my thoughts from the perspective of CMM theory.
The main reason behind communication problems (misunderstandings or conflicts) on ICC
level is, most people are unaware of their own cultural patterns of nonverbal communication
behaviours they are unprepared to deal with the patterns of other cultures. The common
result of this is interpreting each other as rude, pushy, childlike, cold, etc., usually not for
837
what is said, but how it is said, and how we act. So to overcome a burden like this, especially
on ICC, the nonverbal cues and behaviors must be understood by both sides of the
communication parties in the same way. In other words, a level of common nonverbal
language between two different cultures in communication that is called nonverbalintercultural communication (NV-ICC) must be obtained to overcome the barriers in
communication.
However, the NV-ICC is not problem-free. The first problem is to be solved on NV-ICC
studies is that NVC has seven commonly used channels –kinesics, physical appearance,
paralanguage, haptics, proxemics, chronemics, and artifacts - to convey messages, and each
of them has some unique properties and sub-categories. To gain a better understanding on
NVC even within a culture, researchers must work on quite a lot number of aspects, such as
oculesics, tactile communication, color preferences and etc. When looked on the world scale
then, to be able to research the influences of all NVC components on the communication
process seems impossible. Even though it is a very hard and time taking process, up to this
time there are many researches conducted on different channels of NVC –especially in the
United States of America-, but no one yet started a research even on one channel of NVC on
a world-wide scale.
The second problem on NV-ICC studies is to answer the question, “Do NVC cues have
cultural bond?” Most researchers regard NVC as extremely culture bond. This is largely
correct on the other side certain aspects of NVC are proved to be universal. For example,
research on facial expressions -in particular- suggests a strong agreement across cultural
boundaries. Ekman, (2002) due to the research finding that was conducted in 21 countries at
times by different scientists, states that the recognition of facial expressions seems to be
universal, the extend to which feelings and emotions are expressed through facial is culture
bond. In other words, although people from different cultures are likely to agree on the
emotions or feelings that a certain facial expression communicates, they are unlikely to
attribute the same importance to this. For example, Asian cultures are often characterized as
less expressive in their facial expressions than for example Latin cultures. But the recognition
and interpretation of facial expressions seems to be a function of cultural similarity, as
suggested by Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988). In other words, it may be easier for a
Portuguese to interpret facial expressions from a Spaniard than for a person coming form an
Asian culture. To sum this viewpoint, we can say that the most inaccurate judgements were
by people from dissimilar cultures, whereas the most accurate judgements were by people
from similar cultures.
Apart from cultural influences, other influences affect NV-ICC styles. Gender and age seem
to play important roles. For example some researchers suggest that women smile more
frequently than men do in the US and also parents, especially fathers act carefully on touch
communication with their children when they get older. So since these two aspects make
difference in NVC practices of one culture, then it won’t be wrong to say, gender and age
make difference on the ICC scale, too.
In addition to gender and age differences, there is a personal dimension to nonverbal
behavior. Personal characteristics play a vital role in the usage of nonverbal cues. However,
personal characteristics generally follow no real pattern and are specific to the individual.
838
These problematic sides of NVC have various levels of effects on ICC, and to overcome the
listed burdens, we must gain a better understanding on NV-ICC. To achieve a better
understanding on NV-ICC, more studies must be conducted on the NVC channels.
Unfortunately since all of the NVC channels, their sub-categories (oculesics, facial
expressions, posture, color communication etc.), and the nonverbal usages (turn taking,
greeting, lying and deception, seating arrangements etc.) are equally important, depending
on the case and the cultural context one of the NVC channels –haptics- will be mentioned
briefly here.
Touch, or the study of haptics, provides an interesting area of NV-ICC insight. For example
the evaluation of touch functions can vary from culture to culture. An example to this
difference can be given on task-related touching from Korea. In Korea task-related touching
is viewed negatively and is to be avoided. Among Koreans, it is considered disrespectful for
a store owner to touch a customer in, say, handing back change; it is considered too intimate
a gesture. (DeVito, 1995, 234) One other example of touching comes from the Middle East,
where same-sex touching in public is common. For example, men walk with their arms
around each other’s shoulders, a practice that would cause difficulty for many people raised
in the US or in the Northern Europe. (Lambert and the Diagram Group, 1996, 64-65) Even
though this kind of touching can be seen in some regions of Turkey, most people especially
the ones in the big cities find it odd. In general though, touching won’t cause big problems,
unless the person who is touching has inappropriate intentions, in Turkey. Especially when
greeting, handshaking can be accompanied by hugs and kisses between friends –these
friends can be same-sex friends, too. Unlike the general knowledge on handshaking
behavior in Islamic countries –women won’t shake hands with men- most of the Turkish
women shake hands with men to greet.
Middle Easterners, Latin Americans, and Southern Europeans are known as “contact
cultures”, Asian and Northern Europeans are “non-contact cultures”. Members of contact
cultures maintain close distances, touch each other in conversation, face each other more
directly, and maintain longer and more focused eye contact. Members of non-contact
cultures maintain greater distance in their interactions, touch each other only rarely if at all,
avoid facing each other directly, and maintain much less direct eye contact. (DeVito, 1995,
234) Even though there is no evidence due to scientific findings if Turkey is a contact or a
non-contact culture, to make an assumption and say Turkey is a contact culture won’t be
wrong. To sum it up, people coming from contact cultures may perceive the people of noncontact cultures as cold, distant, and uninvolved, on the other hand when the scene is turned
the other way around people from non-contact cultures see the others as pushy, aggressive,
and inappropriately intimate. (Kwal Gamble and Gamble, 1990, 129-130)
Conclusion
Communication, as simple as possible is the meeting of two minds. So communication is
effective to the extent that the person interpreting the message attaches a meaning to the
message that is relatively similar to what was intended by the person transmitting it. Stated
differently, sometimes “two minds” cannot reach the same conclusion, then it won’t be
wrong to say communication can cement a relationship; it can also function as a barrier.
Communication especially fails when two people have different patterns of symbols,
meanings, apprentices, and rules. In other words when two people from different cultures
839
meet, intercultural communication occurs. ICC, has many aspects to deal with but to create a
common language of understanding between two people from diverse cultures, especially
the nonverbal side of language stands out. NVC is the oldest language we are talking so to
overcome misunderstandings and conflicts, it must be used effectively as a “bridge among
cultures”. To use NVC effectively in ICC interactions, the NV-ICC and the theories on NVC
and ICC must be studied under the perspective of NV-ICC.
Many researchers conducted studies on NV-ICC, but the results are not that satisfying. This
problem is basically due to the enormous number of different cultures and many topics to
cover. Especially when looked from the worldwide scale, there are many countries and
cultures are left “untouched” by communication researchers. Turkish culture is one of these
“untouched” cultures. Turkish literature lacks studies on intercultural and nonverbal
communication types. So to be able to create a more understanding atmosphere of
communication between “foreign” cultures and Turkish cultures, studies especially first on
the nonverbal communication repertoires of Turks and then on the nonverbal-intercultural
communication scale must be conducted.
Also with the light of the theoretical approaches on NVC and ICC, NV-ICC must be studied.
We can say that, each theory on NVC and ICC gives useful hints on NV-ICC and effective
communication in general, but since I found the main ideas of the CMM much more similar
with mine, to sum up the ideas mentioned within the paper, a look on NV-ICC from the
perspective of CMM will be done.
CMM is a highly valued one by the humanities-oriented communication theorists. Although
I think all of the theories are equally important on studying NVC, being close to the
humanities perspective, I agree that NV-ICC will be better understood and studied within
the frame of this theory. From the multicultural perspective of CMM, good communication
occurs when you and others are able to coordinate your actions sufficiently well that your
conversations comprise social worlds in which you and they can live well- that is, with
dignity, honor, joy, and love. (Pearce, 1994, 366) Pearce refers to this type of interaction as a
cosmopolitan communication. When applied to individuals, the term “cosmopolitan” calls
to mind a citizen-of-world who is able to interact comfortably with others who come from
diverse cultural backgrounds, hold different values, and express discrepant beliefs. (Griffin,
2000, 66)
“Language is a powerful tool that humans have ever invented for the creation of social
worlds” (Pearce, 1994, 71) according to CMM. So when people in conflict are caught up in a
language game – this game involves verbal and nonverbal aspects of the language- in which
both parties are bound to lose, to reduce the deficiencies of communication “accidents”,
neutralizing the language that describing, shaping or configurating the conflict matters can
change the outcomes.
Another way to solve the problems due to misunderstandings on NV-ICC, CMM can give
another clue; in communication speech-act makes sense within the multiple contexts of the
specific episode∗∗∗∗, our relationship, my self-identity, and my culture. These four frames
shape and are shaped by what I said. (Griffin, 2000, 69) So when communicating ICC, these
four frames in order not to judge someone wrongly must be taken into account carefully.
∗∗∗∗
Episode is a communication routine that has boundaries and rules.
840
Making wrong assumptions of people mostly starts from this point and continues through
out the communication encounter.
In CMM coordination must be reached. Coordination refers to the “process by which
persons collaborate in an attempt to bring into being their vision of what is necessary, noble,
and good and to preclude the enactment of what they fear, hate or despise.” (Pearce, 1994,
78) This is what most people want to accomplish throughout their lives. So to achieve this
aim, we must be sensitive to all the people –from our own or different cultures, in general to
all human kind. In other words, we are all apt to become cosmopolitan communicators to
build a better “communication world”. Since when we are communicating “we are not just
talking about the world, we are literally participating in the creation of the social universe.”
(Pearce, 1994, 75) We have to act like social ecologists in the terms of creating a positive
universe. Each one of us have the mission to join and work for the “enriching
communication world” activity.
References
Books and Articles
Berko, R. M, Wolvin, A. D. and Wolvin, D. R. (1991) Communicating: A Social and Career
Focus. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Burgoon, J.K. (1978). “A communication model of personal space violation: Explication and
an initial test”, Human Communication Research, 4, 129-142.
Ekman, P. (1980) “Three Classes of Nonverbal Behavior”, In Aspects of NVC, ed by RafflerEngel W.V. Lisse: The Pitman Press.
DeVito, J.A. (1995). The Interpersonal Communication Book, (7th Edition), New York:
HarperCollins.
Dodd, C. (1995). Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, Dubuque, IA: Brown &
Benchmark.
Griffin, E. (2000). A First Look at Communication Theory, (4th Edition), USA: The McGrawHill Company.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1990) “Diplomacy: A Special Case of Intergroup Communication.” In F.
Korzenny & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communicating for Peace (pp. 19-39), Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W.B and Ting-Toomey. (1988) Culture and Interpersonal Communication,
Calif.: Sage.
Hall, E.T. (1989). Beyond Culture, (30th edition). New York: Dell Publishing Group.
Hall, E.T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language, New York: Double Day.
Kwal Gamble, T. And Gamble, M. (1990) Communication Works (3rd Ed.) New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lambert, D. and the Diagram Group. (1996) Body Language, Glasgow: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Lustig, W.M. & Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural Communication Competence, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Pearce. W. B. (1994). Interpersonal Communication: Making Social Worlds, New York:
HarperCollins.
841
Pearce, W.B. (1989). Communication and the Human Condition, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale:
Raffler-Engel W.V. (1980) “Introduction”, In Aspects of NVC, ed by Raffler-Engel W.V.
Lisse: The Pitman Press.
Ruffner, M.and Burgoon, M. (1981). Interpersonal Communication. Canada; Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Samovar, L. & Porter, R. (1994). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. (7th ed.), Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999) Communicating Across Cultures, New York: The Guilford Press.
Tubbs, S. L. and Moss, S. (1991). Human Communication. (6th Ed.), New
York: McGraw Hill.
Hyperlinks
Ekachai, D. (08.02.2004) “Characteristics of Hall’s High- and Low-Context Cultures”,
http://www.siu.edu/~ekachai/terms.html
Ekman, P. (18.10.2002). “Facial Expressions”,
http://www.paulekman.com/dahl%20face%20exp.doc
Gudykunst, WB. (08.01.2004) An Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory of
Effective Communication: Making the Mesh of the Net Finer,
http://www.wgudykunst/fullerton/AUM.html
Hart, B. (10.02.2004) “A Brief History of intercultural communication: a paragmatic
approach”
http://www.odu.edu/webroot/instr/AL/wbhart.nsf/pages/histICC
Masterson, J. (27.11.2002) “Functions of Nonverbal Communication”
http://www.costello.iwatepu.ac.jp/papers/Masterson/Dissertation/ch1.html#forms
McGraw-Hill Higher Education. (10.02.2004). “Expectancy Violation Theory”,
http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0767430344/student_view0/chapter8/chapter_summary.html.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education. (10.02.2004). “Symbolic Interactionism”,
http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0767430344/student_view0/chapter5/chapter_summary.html
Mead, L. (27.11.2002). “Nonverbal Communication”, http://lynn_meade.tripod.com/id56.htm
Noreen McGahn (25.12.2003). “Intercultural communication & Cultural Competence”
http://courses.international.edu/bc680/nmcgahn/Intercultural_Comm/index.html
Pearce. W. B. and Pearce. K.A. (02.02.2004) “Extending the Theory of the Coordinated
Management of Meaning (“CMM”) Through a Community Dialogue Process”,
http://www.fielding.edu/hod/faculty/pearceart2.htm
Symbolic Interactionism (10.02.2004). http://www.sociumas.lt/Eng/Nr2/interak.asp
Ting-Toommey, S. (09.02.2004). “Cross-Cultural Face-Negotiation: An Analytical Overview”,
http://www.cic.sfu.ca/forum/ting-too.html
842