Sources: 3 or more sources (online resources — do not list Wikipedia as a source) Choose one the communication concepts/theories introduced in the readings from sessions 1 — 3. As you read, try to identify the key concepts and assumptions of the concept/theories presented, and consider how this communication concept/theory might be applied. Provide an explanation of the communication concept/theory. (Consult other sources to aid you in your explanation. Use online sources for your research.) The opening paragraph should introduce the communication concept/theory you are researching and what you hope to explain in your essay. The first section should discuss the communication concept/theory according to the sources you consulted. The next section should provide examples from personal experiences or from media, such as movies, books, or television shows that illustrate your understanding of the communication concept/theory. Last, find a research study to show how this communication concept/theory is being used in research. Briefly summarize the research study consulted and the results of the study. Conclude by summing up your research on your chosen communication concept/theory and how you can apply it to your studies in cultural communication. Communication Variables This session addresses the study of variables that affect the way we communicate cross culturally. Some of these variables include barriers or obstacles to communication, sending and receiving culturally-influenced nonverbal messages that may conflict with or undermine the verbal messages we are trying to send, languages differences, and relational networks. Defining Communication Communication means many different things. Griffin notes that Frank Dance identified over 120 definitions of communication, and many more definitions have been proposed since Dance published his work over 40 years ago. Some communication theorists note that the term has come to be used for almost any human interaction (Griffin, 2012). Griffin proposes as a working definition, “Communication is the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (2012, p. 6). In the context of this course, communication is one element of culture. Communication and culture are inseparable. As Smith (1966) notes, “Culture is a code we learn and share, and learning and sharing require communication” (p._). Cultural identity and values also affect how communication is conceptualized. Westerners often see communication as a way of communicating ideas or opinions to others. Western communication studies date back over 2,400 years to Aristotle. For Aristotle, communication is a process “involving a speaker, the speech act, an audience, and a purpose” (Jandt, 2010, p. 20). Communication studies in the Twentieth Century expanded these notions, and identified the following components of communication: “source, encoding, message, channel, noise, receiver, decoding, receiver response, feedback, and context” (Jandt, 2010, p. 41). A Confucian perspective on communication “emphasizes virtue, selflessness, duty, patriotism, hard work, and respect for hierarchy, both familial and societal” (Jandt, 2010, p. 38). Communication as an Element of Culture In considering communication as an element of culture, many functions come into play: transmitting culture, living within a culture with other people who may think and act differently, decision-making processes, etc. One’s ability to function successful depends on one’s lntercultural Communication Competence, which “refers to one’s skill in facilitating successful intercultural communication outcomes in terms of satisfaction and other positive assessments of the interaction and the interaction partner” (Y. Y. Kim, 2005). Culture’s Influence on Perception Perception is a process of deriving meaning from messages through associations of current messages with previous messages. Perception begins with messages received through our senses-seeing, smelling, feeling, hearing, and tasting. We don’t usually think of using some of these senses for communicating to others, but they are ways our environment communicates to us, at least in the sense of drawing meaning from the messages. If we smell smoke, the message is interpreted by attempting to assign a meaning to the smell (sensation) to determine whether we need to take further action-put out the fire, escape, or ignore it. Our culture helps us assign meaning to the messages we get from our environment or other people. Lester has identified a process of making meaning from visual messages. He suggests a three step cycle: • • • Sense: Seeing begins with sensing light and experiencing objects. Light hits receptor cells in our eyes, and is passed to other parts of the brain for processing. This processing results in different meanings or responses to the message. Select: Our senses are constantly receiving many messages or sensations simultaneously, so we must select or limit attention to a subset of the visual field to classify objects for further processing. Perceiving: Assigning meaning to the selection. Meaningful images are more easily remembered (Lester, 2010). A Case Study of Perception and Food Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” In Mexican society, tortillas are the staple food of poorer people, while white bread is special and more expensive. If you were trying to express what Jesus said in a culturally appropriate way, would you say that Jesus said He was the tortilla of life (an essential part of everyday life) or that He was the bread of life (something reserved for special occasions)? Kenneth Pike (1996) provides an interesting example of culturally defined perception in his book With Heart and Mind: Different people may see the same event in different ways. Last spring, for example, a few yards from the shore of an oxbow lake which was curling through the jungles of the Amazon headwaters of Peru, I was listening to Esther Matteson explain some of the problems raised by the translation of the New Testament into the language of the Piro Indians. Suddenly she glanced up, looked intently toward the trees lining the shore of the lake, and said, “There’s something worth shooting out there.” All that I could see were a few branches swaying. “The wind?” I asked. “No,” she said firmly, ‘the branches are moving too far in a small place-it must be either a monkey or a big bird. Oh, for a boy with bow and arrow!” Miss Matteson and I both saw the same event-the moving branches–yet we each saw different events. Where I saw the trail of wind, she saw clues to the presence of meat to fill out a skimpy diet and to add flavor to the soup. Explanation of such a simple event leads to principles which are very farreaching indeed… They are vital to problems of anthropology, of perception, and of the basic categories through which we view the universe and know what we know. Yet the systematic application of such principles is just now making itself felt in the study of important areas of human behavior. In the event cited, notice especially two ways of describing it. First, a detached observer might describe only the actual movement and setting of the items physically seen by both of us: The shoreline of the lake had growing on it numerous tropical trees. Within a cluster of these trees, at a certain place, a few branches were moving at such-and-such a rate of speed, such-and-such distances. This descriptive type, … gives a physical analysis of a physical event without necessary reference to the reaction of that event on one particular observer foreign to the environment, as distinct from its reaction on a different observer who is by experience and participation oriented to that environment. The detached observer’s view is one window on the world. The view of the local scene through the eyes of a native participant in that scene is a different window. Either view by itself is restricted in scope and leads to a kind of distortion-the first, since it ignores the concept of relevance, or purpose, or meaning, and the second because it distorts or molds vision or experience so that one interprets what one sees, or hears, or understands, only through the rose-colored glasses of one’s own experiential structure. It is my contention that both views must be brought to the fore if any event is to be well understood” (Pike, 1996). Barriers to lntercultural Communication There are many barriers to communication in general, and intercultural communication in particular. These barriers are based on cognitive and affective differences between people and are exacerbated by emotions raised when confronting feelings of inappropriateness and anxiety when dealing with people or situations we don’t understand. Anxiety Anxiety is a general barrier to communication that is reflected in various communication theories. ‘When you are anxious because of not knowing what you are expected to do, it is only natural to focus on that feeling and not be totally present in the communication transaction” (Jandt, 2010, p. 83). Culture provides a way of programming our expectations of appropriate responses because it defines for us what someone means when they say certain things or acts in certain ways. Because our culture programs our expectations, it programs us to assume similarity instead of difference. These assumptions work with people of our own culture, who also share the same expectations because of their cultural programming, but they can cause problems when people with whom we interact don’t respond in ways we feel to be appropriate. Rather than judging them negatively because we don’t understand their response, “It’s better to assume nothing. It’s better to ask, ‘What are the customs,’ rather than assuming they’re the same-or different everywhere” (Jandt, 2010, p. 83). Closely related to this assumption of similarity is ethnocentrism, which can be defined as “negatively judging aspects of another culture by the standards of one’s own culture. To be ethnocentric is to believe in the superiority of one’s own culture” (Jandt, 2010, p. 85). Most people are ethnocentric to varying degrees, due to the mental programming they share with people of their own culture. Cohen states, “Another name for ethnocentrism is the anthropological concept of cultural relativism. It does not mean that everything is equal. It does mean that we must try to understand other people’s behavior in the context of their culture before we judge it. It also means that we recognize the arbitrary nature of our own cultural behaviors and are willing to reexamine them by learning about behaviors in other cultures” (as cited in Jandt, 2010, p. 85). Stereotypes and Prejudice Ethnocentrism is a belief or assumption of cultural superiority. Other closely related concepts function at the level of personal or smaller sub-group attitudes-stereotypes and prejudice. Stereotypes are “judgments made about others on the basis of their ethnic group membership. Today, the term is more broadly used to refer to judgments made on the basis of any group membership ….When information is ambiguous, the brain often reaches the wrong conclusion” (Jandt, 2010, p. 86). Prejudice can be contrasted with the closely related notion of stereotypes. Rothenberg states, “Whereas stereotypes can be positive or negative, prejudice refers.to the irrational dislike, suspicion, or hatred of a particular group, race, religion, or sexual orientation” (as cited in Jandt, 2010, p.91). “Persons within the group are viewed not in terms of their individual merit but according to the superficial characteristics that make them part of the group” (Jandt, 2010, p. 91). Nonverbal Communication Another barrier to intercultural communication is the difference between the ascribed meanings of nonverbal messages. Nonverbal communication is usually intentional communication. It can be defined narrowly or broadly. In a narrow definition, it is “used to refer to intentional use, as in using a non-spoken symbol to communicate a specific message” (Jandt, 2010, p. 107). Using symbols that have a shared meaning, such as a smile, a nod, a handshake, may seem obvious, but they don’t always mean the same things in other cultures. Other symbols have different meanings, some of which can be quite offensive, which is confusing to someone trying to communicate friendship or respect. As a broad definition, nonverbal communications can “refer to elements of the environment that communicate by virtue of people’s use of them• (Jandt, 2010, p. 107). These include such seemingly innocuous things as the colors of walls In the room. As intentional communication, nonverbal communication has several functions: Replacing spoken messages: using nonverbal messages instead of speaking. Sending uncomfortable messages: using nonverbal messages when we don’t want to say something unpleasant. Forming impressions that guide communication: clothing, grooming. Making relationships clear. Regulating interaction-tum-taking in conversation. Reinforcing and modifying verbal messages-gestures support or contradict the verbal message. Nonverbal Message Codes Nonverbal messages can be encoded in a variety of ways: • • • • • • Proxemics: culturally defined notions of personal space (Dodd, 1998; Jandt, 2010). How close should you stand or sit with another person? For Westerners, it depends on how well you know the person, gender, and social relationships. If the person is your significant other, you may allow them to be very close, while other people may evoke the feeling that “I wish they would get out of my space.” Kinesics: facial expressions and other body language (Jandt, 2010). What do gestures or body posture mean? If I said, ‘I am so happy to be here,” while standing with my arms crossed, I would be sending conflicting messages. Research has demonstrated repeatedly that when nonverbal and verbal messages disagree, people will usually believe the nonverbal message. Chronemics: cultural views of time-monochronic and polychronic. What does time mean to the other person? How late is “fashionably late”-a few minutes or a few hours? In messages today, how long do you wait for a reply to a text or email message before you conclude that the other person is Ignoring or disrespecting you? Paralanguage: “tone of voice” • • • • • • • Silence: when it is appropriate or not (Jandt, 201O; Martin & Nakayama, 2004) Haptics: communication through touching, including notions of appropriateness or rudeness (Jandt, 2010) Clothing and physical appearance: including group identification through specific clothing, such as uniforms or colors (Jandt, 2010) Territoriality: privacy and space, feng shui Olfactics: messages communicated through particular smells (Jandt, 2010) Oculesics: eye behavior and eye contact, whether avoidance indicates respect, embarrassment, or suspicion; where one looks (Dodd, 1998;Jandt, 2010). Who do you look at? Where do you look? Language as a Barrier Language differences can be a barrier to intercultural communication. Sometimes these differences are obvious, as when the other person knows he or she cannot understand the language the first person is speaking. In these situations, we may feel that the other person is disrespecting us or talking about us when they may just be speaking a language with which they are more comfortable. At one extreme of the language-as-abarrier view is the notion of Linguistic Determinism-the view that language structure controls thought and cultural norms. Each of us lives not in the midst of the whole world but only in that part of the world that our language permits us to know. Thus, the world as each of us knows it is, to a large extent, predetermined by the language of our culture. And the differences between languages represent basic differences in the worldview of diverse cultures. (Jandt, 2010, p. 130) Related to linguistic determinism is a weaker form, known as Linguistic Relativity, the view that language provides the conceptual categories that influence how its speakers’ perceptions are encoded and stored. Steinfatt (1989), in an extensive review of the literature, argues that the basis of linguistic relativity is that the difference between languages is not what can be said but what is relatively easy to say. (Jandt, 2010, p. 130) In the early Twentieth Century, the linguist Edward Sapir and his student, Benjamin Wharf, developed a view of linguistic relativism that came to be known as the SapirWhorf Hypothesis, though they never co-authored any research on the subject. Wharf started out as an insurance investigator interested in linguistic meaning: … around a storage of what are called “gasoline drums” behavior will tend to a certain type, that is, great care will be exercised; while around a storage of what are called “empty gasoline drums” it will tend to be different-careless, with little repression of smoking or of tossing cigarette stubs about. Yet the “empty” drums are perhaps the more dangerous, since they contain explosive vapor. Physically the situation is hazardous, but the linguistic analysis according to regular analogy must employ the word “empty,” which inevitably suggests lack of hazard (Wharf, 1941; cited in Bohannan & Glazer, 1988, p. 152). Bohannon and Glazer (1988) summarized Wharfs contribution to human understanding as follows: Wharf had a deep impact on both linguistics and cultural anthropology through a very simple set of ideas: meaning is essential, he claimed, to the study of linguistics, and the categories of meaning change from one cultural tradition to another (p. 151). They continue: Whorf’s views are put in a way that is unstylish today because he claimed that language reflects and constrains “thought.” But we can at least agree that the language one learns necessarily constrains and structures what it is that one says. Presumably one also “thinks” in terms of one’s language. For this reason, the categories of thought are the categories of a particular culture …. (p. 151). In its strongest form, Wharf claims that language, linguistic and cultural categories define and delimit possible mental experiences (“The language we speak determines the way we think.”). Humans have a culturally and linguistically defined filtering system that allows the possible perceptions and forms the basis for perceiving and creating an individual’s notion of reality. Language is a key component of this filter (Scupin,2003). In a weaker form with which more linguists, anthropologists, and cognitive scientists could agree, Whorf’s claim could be stated, “The language we speak influences the way we think” (Kovecses, 2006, p. 34). Another way language can serve as a barrier is due to problems in translating from one language to another. Translation problems can be due to expected but unrealized equivalences in a number of areas: • • Vocabulary Equivalence: some languages don’t have words to express certain concepts or ranges of meaning. Languages spoken by cultures without snow don’t have a word for it, while cultures (Eskimos) or sub-cultures (skiers) for whom distinctions among kinds of snow are important might have many. Idiomatic Equivalence: idioms are phrases where the meaning is not equal to the sum of its parts: the English idiom “kick the bucket” broadly means to die, and currently has nothing to do with kicking or buckets (though it originally was specifically associated with kicking away a supportive footstool or bucket in some cases of execution by hanging). A non-native speaker of English finds our use of idioms at times very confusing. • • • Grammatical-Syntactical Equivalence: confusion or misunderstanding caused by differences or ambiguity in grammatical constructions. Experiential Equivalence: much of our understanding or assumptions about the world come from our life experiences. When people of another culture have different experiences or assumptions, misunderstanding is not only possible but likely. Conceptual Equivalence: like experience, many concepts evoke a different understanding of the concepts involved. Americans have a long and positive association with the notion of democracy, and we sometimes ethnocentrically believe all people everywhere should live in a democratic society. This view is based on an individualistic understanding of life and society not shared by many other cultures, leading to frustration and misunderstanding when expectations are not shared or fulfilled. Another way language can serve as a barrier is due to language associations serving a particular function. ln some countries and societies, the language you speak depends on the social context. One language may be spoken at school or in government, while another might be spoken in worship (at the church or mosque), while still another may be spoken at home. Speaking the “wrong” language for a particular setting may send the wrong message. When people do not share a common language, yet still need to communicate, they often make different kinds of attempts to find or create some way to get their message across. These attempts include pidgins, creoles, and universal languages: Pidgins-a pidgin is a trade or contact language; it is not spoken by either party as their primary language. Creole-a creole is a contact language (a pidgin) that become a first language (L1) for some speakers. Universal languages- Esperanto “is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language.” It was developed by Zamenhof in 1887. Zamenhof “believed that much of the distrust and misunderstanding between the different ethnic groups was a result of language differences, so he resolved to create an international language which could be used as an neutral lingua franca and could help break down the language barriers” (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/esperanto. htm). Language may serve as a form of cultural or ethnic identity, as an expression of nationalism. If you speak or understand several languages, you may refuse to acknowledge that you know a language you consider to be that of others. Connecting Through Social Relationships and Networks Another communication variable that is becoming increasingly important is the social relationship between the participants. Social networking started as a way of developing and maintaining personal relationships in an online environment, but it has acquired a significant place in organizational communication among the various stakeholders and participants, from employees, managers, and public relations, to communication with customers and vendors. The “like” function of social media has taken on a life of its own, and the number of people who “like” you on Facebook or follow you on Twitter has become one additional metric of success or popularity by which to measure an organization. Workplace Relationships Roles and relationships are increasingly negotiated, and some would say that even reality is socially constructed. ‘A key facet of organizational life today is negotiating relationships and Identities” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 148). The process of relational interaction can be described in terms of several key elements: defining the relational situation and communication goals, defining roles and relationships, and dialectics-the tension between differing ideas or forces, or alternative choices (Cheney et al., 2011). Cheney et al. (2011) identify several key dialectics: • • • • • • Connection-Autonomy (wanting to be a part of a team and also achieve recognition as an Individual) Openness-Closedness (sharing your information while maintaining a degree of privacy) Novelty-Predictability (feeling comfortable knowing how things work and being uncomfortable with doing it the same old way) Equality-Inequality (wanting to feel the belonging of being equal to others while wanting the recognition of a promotion or special privileges) Instrumentality-Affection (ends-means; wondering about getting attention from your supervisor and wondering why he or she is paying attention to you) Impartiality-Favoritism (The desire to have people treated fairly and impartially versus the desire to be “special”) Workplace relationships come in various forms within the organizational structure. These include the following: • • • • Superior-subordinate relationships: these include roles within traditional organizational structures such that one person supervises the work of another. Peer relationships: relationships between people inside and external to the organization that are important to the career or personal success of one or more of the participants. These relationships can be positive or negative, and may enhance or diminish the people involved. Internal-external relationships: these relationships do not necessarily involve peers, but may include moves toward customer-driven or customer-centered marketing. Problematic relationships: not all workplace relationships are positive. Some are abusive or harmful and contribute negatively to the well-being of one or more of the participants in terms of stress or even personal danger. Relationships: relationships change over time, often without intention or active effort. Sometimes people drift apart, while at other times “relationships are reframed strategically” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 160). Relationships don’t exist in a vacuum, especially in organizational contexts. To this point, we have focused on relational dyads-relationships between two people. However, most often relationships exist in communication networks-connecting with someone who has connections to others, and so forth. To understand organizational communication often involves an understanding of these various networks and how they work. People looking to further their careers are often encouraged to use their network of contacts to improve their possibilities for advancement within an organization or through connections to other organizations where they may have other opportunities. This process of understanding and using their networks of relationships and contacts effectively begins with network analysis. Network Analysis is useful for understanding patterns of information flow within an organization-how leadership can move information most effectively and acceptably within the existing organizational structure. Often, dictates or pronouncements “from on high” are not received as credible but with suspicion or skepticism. Richard Farace and others have identified three types of networks in organizations (Cheney et al., 2011): 1. Production networks: these exist to get organizational work done 2. Innovation networks: these “emerge around creation, development, and diffusion of new ideas” (p. 162) 3. Maintenance networks: “exist to develop and maintain social relationships” (p.162) that allow the organization to continue to function effectively In addition to networks within organizations, other networks have evolved. Communities of practice focus on people with shared interest or professional skills who work together, even across organizations, to accomplish certain tasks or solve problems that might not be addressed otherwise. “The free-flowing exchange fosters new approaches to problems. Wenger and Snyder emphasize that communities of practice emerge; they are not pre-established. However, organizations that value innovation and knowledge sharing should create conditions in which communities of practice can flourish” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 163). lnterorganizational relationships are formed to address issues or problems of mutual concern among organizations (as opposed to the people involved in communities of practice). These may be short-term or long-term partnerships or consortia, where organizations pool their resources and expertise: “Although such relationships vary in intensity, closeness, and scope of collaboration, they are typically designed to increase the competitiveness of the involved partners by creating synergy between their individual resources, strategies, and skills” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 163). These relationships help spread risk and allow organizations to address problems larger than can be met with the resources an organization has available .to commit to the topic or problem. Some organizations are Network Organizations. They exist primarily to coordinate the efforts of other organizations. This coordination often functions under some agreement or Memorandum of Understanding among the organizations, identifying the contributions and expected results and benefits each can deliver and expect from others. Many organizations have specialized Core Competencies, the skill set or expertise that makes them stand out from others. Rather than detract from this expertise, they outsource other tasks to organizations that do what they cannot or do not wish to do. An example of this is the growing number and size of business services, such as payroll and human relations. Communication in interorganizational relationships may be more efficient, but it poses its own challenges as well. Since the various collaborating entities are independent and not controlled by the others, three important issues are crucial to its success: trust, identity, and coordination: • • • Trust: “Among organizational partners involves goodwill, commitment, and equity. Organizations need to trust that their partners enter the reiationship with good intentions, that they are sincerely interested in contributing to the relationship, and that they are motivated to deal fairly. This is not always the case. Some organizations enter partnerships with the intention of absorbing the skills and activities of the other organizations, unfairly taking more than they contribute to the collaboration” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 172). Identity: “Each participating organization [must have] a clear sense of itself and its stakes in the relationship” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 172). Coordination. “In contrast to the classical organization arrangement, interorganizational relationships typically have unclear lines of authority and control. As a consequence, processes of coordination within such relationships are potentially marked by confusion and ambiguity. lnterorganizational relationships therefore require a strong commitment to cooperation” (Cheney et al., 2011, p. 173). References and Resources American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, D.C. Arnott, D. (2000). Corporate cuts: The insidious lure of the all-consuming organization. New York: Amacom. Bohannan, P., & Glazer, M. (1988). High points in anthropology, 2nd ed.New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2011).0rganizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices, 2nd ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (2004). Cultural anthropology (11th ed.). Upper- Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice-Hall. Hall, E.T. (1981). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books. Jandt, F. (2010). An Introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community (6th ed.). Sage. Jordan, A. T. (2003). Business anthropology. Waveland Press. Kovecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lester, P. M.(2010). Visual communication: Images with messages, 5th ed. ThomsonWadsworth Publishing Company. Pike, K. L. (1996). With heart and mind: A personal synthesis of scholarship and devotion. Adult Learning Systems, Inc. This essay was reprinted by permission of the author from an original published in 1962 by William B. Eermans. Scupin, R. (2003). Cultural anthropology: A global perspective (5th ed.). Upper-Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Smith, K., Moriarty, S., Barbatsis, G., & Kenney, K. (2004). Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (LEA’s Communication Series). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wharf, B. L. (1988). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Bohannan, Paul, and Glazer (Eds.), High points in anthropology (2nd ed.). (pp. 152-170). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. (Original work published in 1944). Purchase answer to see full attachment Explanation & Answer: 6 Pages Tags: variables communication Frank Dance User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.