yeunhoanh_nhiu
New Member
Link tải luận văn miễn phí cho ae Kết nối
Acknowledgements
I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, M.A Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, without whose valuable comments and guidance, my thesis would not have been accomplished.
My special thanks go to my colleagues from Haiphong Water Supply Company, those who helped me fill in my survey questionnaire and give me constructive suggestions in completing this thesis.
And I am immensely grateful to my former teacher, Ms. Stacy Thompson, who is living and working in the United States. She has helped me conduct my survey in the United States.
I owe my family great attitude for their love, support and encouragement.
Finally, I should acknowledge my indebtedness to all my friends for their assistance during the process of preparing for this research.
Even the best verbal communication skills are not enough to create and sustain successful relationships. Good relationships, both at home and at work, require the ability to communicate with emotional intelligence.
Part of our culture involves an unspoken rule that people should ignore nonverbal elements– as if the injunction were, "hear what I say, and don't notice the way I say it." These elements are often ignored in school or overridden by parents, so the task of incorporating conscious sensitivity to nonverbal communications is made more difficult. Thus, this thesis is an attempt to provide a cross-cultural comparison of common conversational distances, their frequency used in American and Vietnamese cultures and factors affecting conversational distances.
Special emphasis is given to classification and usage of conversational distances as well as factors affecting conversational distances.
The implications are suggested and recommendations provided for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown. For instance, American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese. Besides, there is not much difference whether between brothers or sisters in keeping intimate distance when showing intimate emotion in American, whereas, Vietnamese people tend to keep closer distance with their sister than brother. It is also concluded that if two Americans of opposite sex are conversing, they find close phase easier, freer and more conventional , however, it is applied for every case that if the communicative partners are of the same sex then closer distance is more popular with Vietnamese informants.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use
Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication
Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication
Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators
Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their communicators
Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators
Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators
Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces
Table 7: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their mother
Table 8: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their father
Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their brother
Table 10: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their sister
Table 11: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two male friends)
Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two female friends)
Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex close friend
Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex acquaintance
Table 15: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex acquaintance
Table 16: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex colleague
Table 17: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex colleague
Table 18: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their boss
Table 19: Figures on using conversational distances by informants between 20 and 40 years old
Table 20: Figures on using conversational distances by informants above 40 years old
Table 21: Figures on using conversational distances by male informants
Table 22: Figures on using conversational distances by female informants
Table 23: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in rural areas
Table 24: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in urban areas
Table 25: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with teamwork occupation
Table 26: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with independent work occupation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
I. Rationale 1
II. Aims of the study 2
III. Scope of the study 2
IV. Methodology 3
V. Design of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
Chapter 1: Literature review 4
1. What is communication? 4
1.1 Definition of communication 4
1.2 Types of communication 5
2. What is nonverbal communication? 7
2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 7
2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 9
2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 11
Chapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication 14
1. Definition of conversational distances 14
2. Classification of conversational distances 15
2.1 Intimate distance 15
2.2 Personal distance 17
(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn) 17
2.3 Social distance 18
2.4 Public distance 19
3. Factors effecting conversational distances 19
3.1 High - low contact culture 20
3.2 Gender 20
3.3 Relationship 21
3.4 Age 21
3.5 Population density 22
3.6 Intended message 23
Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion 24
1. Methodology 24
1.1 Participants 24
1.2 Instruments 24
1.3 Procedures of data collection 24
2. Data analysis and findings 26
2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s role relationship 26
2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 32
PART C: CONCLUSION 36
I. Summary of main findings: 36
II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown 36
III. Suggestion for further study 37
Appendices
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
Stated briefly, how something is expressed may carry more significance and weight than what is said, the words themselves. Accompanied by a smile or a frown, said with a loud, scolding voice or a gentle, easy one, the contents of our communications are framed by our holistic perceptions of their context. Those sending the messages may learn to understand themselves better as well as learning to exert some greater consciousness about their manner of speech. Those receiving the messages may learn to better understand their own intuitive responses–sometimes in contrast to what it seems "reasonable" to think.
The use of physical space by individuals in their interactions with others can be considered as one of the most critical signals of nonverbal communication as this use of physical space seems to be different from culture to culture; thus, ways of interpretation of the same space message are also various. In the 1950's, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall pioneered proxemics to describe set measurable distances between people as they interact. Like gravity, the influence of two bodies on each other is inversely proportional not only to the square of their distance but possibly even the cube of the distance between them (Hall, 1966).
Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. In Latin cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive). Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference.
In this thesis, we will discuss conversational distances and its effects on human communication. Additionally, we will compare and contrast the way Vietnamese and American informants apply conversational distances with certain subjects. It is expected that the findings will, to a certain extent, raise readers’ awareness of the importance of nonverbal communication and provide useful recommendations to Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances when conducting face-to-face interactions with their Anglophone partners.
II. Aims of the study
The aims of the study are:
To compare and contrast types of conversational distances in human interactions and the influence of the informants’ parameters on conversational distances in the two cultures in order to clarify similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and the American apply conversational distances.
To provide recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances.
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions are to be addressed:
1. What are the conversational distances of the Vietnamese informants in given situations?
2. What are the conversational distances of the American informants in given situations?
3. What are the main similarities and differences in conversational distances between Vietnamese and American informants?
4. What are the recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances?
III. Scope of the study
The study stresses upon the nonverbal communication. Extralinguistically, the study especially discusses the conversational distances in the two cultures: Vietnamese and American.
Do Drive thay đổi chính sách, nên một số link cũ yêu cầu duyệt download. các bạn chỉ cần làm theo hướng dẫn.
Password giải nén nếu cần: ket-noi.com | Bấm trực tiếp vào Link để tải:
Acknowledgements
I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, M.A Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, without whose valuable comments and guidance, my thesis would not have been accomplished.
My special thanks go to my colleagues from Haiphong Water Supply Company, those who helped me fill in my survey questionnaire and give me constructive suggestions in completing this thesis.
And I am immensely grateful to my former teacher, Ms. Stacy Thompson, who is living and working in the United States. She has helped me conduct my survey in the United States.
I owe my family great attitude for their love, support and encouragement.
Finally, I should acknowledge my indebtedness to all my friends for their assistance during the process of preparing for this research.
Even the best verbal communication skills are not enough to create and sustain successful relationships. Good relationships, both at home and at work, require the ability to communicate with emotional intelligence.
Part of our culture involves an unspoken rule that people should ignore nonverbal elements– as if the injunction were, "hear what I say, and don't notice the way I say it." These elements are often ignored in school or overridden by parents, so the task of incorporating conscious sensitivity to nonverbal communications is made more difficult. Thus, this thesis is an attempt to provide a cross-cultural comparison of common conversational distances, their frequency used in American and Vietnamese cultures and factors affecting conversational distances.
Special emphasis is given to classification and usage of conversational distances as well as factors affecting conversational distances.
The implications are suggested and recommendations provided for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown. For instance, American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese. Besides, there is not much difference whether between brothers or sisters in keeping intimate distance when showing intimate emotion in American, whereas, Vietnamese people tend to keep closer distance with their sister than brother. It is also concluded that if two Americans of opposite sex are conversing, they find close phase easier, freer and more conventional , however, it is applied for every case that if the communicative partners are of the same sex then closer distance is more popular with Vietnamese informants.
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use
Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication
Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication
Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators
Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their communicators
Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators
Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators
Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces
Table 7: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their mother
Table 8: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their father
Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their brother
Table 10: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their sister
Table 11: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two male friends)
Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two female friends)
Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex close friend
Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex acquaintance
Table 15: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex acquaintance
Table 16: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex colleague
Table 17: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex colleague
Table 18: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their boss
Table 19: Figures on using conversational distances by informants between 20 and 40 years old
Table 20: Figures on using conversational distances by informants above 40 years old
Table 21: Figures on using conversational distances by male informants
Table 22: Figures on using conversational distances by female informants
Table 23: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in rural areas
Table 24: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in urban areas
Table 25: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with teamwork occupation
Table 26: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with independent work occupation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
I. Rationale 1
II. Aims of the study 2
III. Scope of the study 2
IV. Methodology 3
V. Design of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
Chapter 1: Literature review 4
1. What is communication? 4
1.1 Definition of communication 4
1.2 Types of communication 5
2. What is nonverbal communication? 7
2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 7
2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 9
2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 11
Chapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication 14
1. Definition of conversational distances 14
2. Classification of conversational distances 15
2.1 Intimate distance 15
2.2 Personal distance 17
(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn) 17
2.3 Social distance 18
2.4 Public distance 19
3. Factors effecting conversational distances 19
3.1 High - low contact culture 20
3.2 Gender 20
3.3 Relationship 21
3.4 Age 21
3.5 Population density 22
3.6 Intended message 23
Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion 24
1. Methodology 24
1.1 Participants 24
1.2 Instruments 24
1.3 Procedures of data collection 24
2. Data analysis and findings 26
2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s role relationship 26
2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 32
PART C: CONCLUSION 36
I. Summary of main findings: 36
II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown 36
III. Suggestion for further study 37
Appendices
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
Stated briefly, how something is expressed may carry more significance and weight than what is said, the words themselves. Accompanied by a smile or a frown, said with a loud, scolding voice or a gentle, easy one, the contents of our communications are framed by our holistic perceptions of their context. Those sending the messages may learn to understand themselves better as well as learning to exert some greater consciousness about their manner of speech. Those receiving the messages may learn to better understand their own intuitive responses–sometimes in contrast to what it seems "reasonable" to think.
The use of physical space by individuals in their interactions with others can be considered as one of the most critical signals of nonverbal communication as this use of physical space seems to be different from culture to culture; thus, ways of interpretation of the same space message are also various. In the 1950's, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall pioneered proxemics to describe set measurable distances between people as they interact. Like gravity, the influence of two bodies on each other is inversely proportional not only to the square of their distance but possibly even the cube of the distance between them (Hall, 1966).
Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. In Latin cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive). Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference.
In this thesis, we will discuss conversational distances and its effects on human communication. Additionally, we will compare and contrast the way Vietnamese and American informants apply conversational distances with certain subjects. It is expected that the findings will, to a certain extent, raise readers’ awareness of the importance of nonverbal communication and provide useful recommendations to Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances when conducting face-to-face interactions with their Anglophone partners.
II. Aims of the study
The aims of the study are:
To compare and contrast types of conversational distances in human interactions and the influence of the informants’ parameters on conversational distances in the two cultures in order to clarify similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and the American apply conversational distances.
To provide recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances.
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions are to be addressed:
1. What are the conversational distances of the Vietnamese informants in given situations?
2. What are the conversational distances of the American informants in given situations?
3. What are the main similarities and differences in conversational distances between Vietnamese and American informants?
4. What are the recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances?
III. Scope of the study
The study stresses upon the nonverbal communication. Extralinguistically, the study especially discusses the conversational distances in the two cultures: Vietnamese and American.
Do Drive thay đổi chính sách, nên một số link cũ yêu cầu duyệt download. các bạn chỉ cần làm theo hướng dẫn.
Password giải nén nếu cần: ket-noi.com | Bấm trực tiếp vào Link để tải:
You must be registered for see links