Cross Cultural Communication Essay Example

a must. Cross-cultural communication (also frequently referred to as intercultural communication) is a field of study that looks at how people from differing cultural backgrounds endeavor to communicate.

Cross-cultural communication tries to bring together such relatively unrelated areas as cultural anthropology and established areas of communication. Its core is to establish and understand how people from different cultures communicate with each other. Its charge is to also produce some guidelines with which people from different cultures can better communicate with each other. We study the culture in context of cultural theories given by following researchers * Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions  Hall’s Context theory Schwartz value Inventory TheoryEvery country have her own unique cultural, because of this cultural uniqueness there are some difference during communication . To avoid these flaws during communication one should know about the society, etiquettes and culture & business etiquettes and protocol of the countries with which he/she interacting. 2.

Culture Patterns and Theories Behavioral Pattern A number of mostly behavioral concepts have been identified that can be used to distinguish between cultures. These include, for example, the differences in the usage of  Kinesics (body movements), Proxemics (space organization),  Oculesics (eye movement),  Haptics (touching behavior)  Paralinguistic concepts (accents, intonation, speed of talking) Not surprisingly each of these concepts plays an important role in intercultural communication, particularly in communication where the context plays an important role. Most people will either consciously, or subconsciously look for affirmative action (or reaction) by their counterparts when speaking to them face to face, for example to signal that what is being said is understood. In those cases the affirmative action is, not surprisingly, often directly linked to cultural context. Failure

to provide the correct affirmative action may well be interpreted as undermining the spoken word.

Depending on the context, this may lead to a complete communication breakdown. For example, eye contact is an important part of the communication process in Western cultures. It is often seen as an affirmative action of what is said. However, maintaining eye contact is not usually acceptable in certain Asian cultures, where, for example, a woman can only maintain eye contact with her husband.

Clearly, a woman from such a culture will cause confusion, if not disbelief when communicating with a Western interlocutor. Thought Pattern Another frequently examined concept is thought patterns. These can be summarized as being:  logical or pre-logic,  inductive or deductive,  abstract or concrete  Alphabetic or analphabetic These concepts are more complex, and they may require more attention, as they are slightly more difficult to grasp. For example, inductive or deductive thought patterns may have a profound impact on argumentation and communication styles, but also on the way the world is seen and understood. According to Maletzke (1996), Anglo-Saxon thought patterns are predominantly inductive, Latin American and Russian thought patterns are predominantly deductive.

Whereas inductive thinking aims to derive theoretical concepts from individual cases, deductive thinking aims to interpret individual cases within previously derived theoretical concepts. Clearly, argumentation styles will be quite different in the two approaches. Equally, thinking within the Aristotelian logical tradition, which is dominant in most Western cultures may not be understood by people from a culture which emphasizes a more holistic approach to thinking. Although all of the concepts that have been proposed are interesting as a possible way to examine differences in cultural patterns, they

are difficult to apply in the context of a wider study because of the severe lack of quantitative data. It is thus necessary to look for classifications of cultural patterns at a deeper level than the behavioral one (or the outer layer of the culture onion), as well as research that is backed up by the availability of empirical data.

All of the concepts referred to above are limited to only one aspect out of the multi-aspect differences that make an effective research agenda into cultural differences. Even when taken together, they do not allow a broad analysis or classification of cultures to any great extent or depth. More systematic and profound concepts, such as Hall (1959, 1969) and Hofstede (1991, 1994) were required to allow for a more detailed analysis of culture at a different level than only behavioral. 2. 3 Hofstede Framework for Assessing Culture He has found five dimensions of culture in his study of national work-related values: Small vs.

Large Power Distance - the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Small power distance (e. g.Austria, Denmark) expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic.

People relate to one and other more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decision making of those in power. Large power distances (e. g. China) less powerful accept power relations that are more autocratic and paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others simply based on where they are situated in certain formal, hierarchical positions.