Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMM 10 Module 6 Intercultural Communication 2 Final 1 - PDF
COMM 10 Module 6 Intercultural Communication 2 Final 1 - PDF
COMM 10 Module 6 Intercultural Communication 2 Final 1 - PDF
Module 6
Intercultural Communication 2
Introduction
The previous module tackled Edward T. Hall’s concept of high-context and low-context cul-
tures in interpersonal and intergroup communication. The current module expands the discus-
sion on intercultural communication to frameworks for addressing issues in intercultural con-
texts. Knowing how to make communication work in an intercultural setting is a crucial
competence that all of us must develop because all communication is, to some degree, inter-
cultural. Even among people coming from the same cultural community, issues in intercultur-
al communication can be observed. The aim of the module is to introduce you to concepts,
cognitive markers, and principles of intercultural communication to help you develop a way
of thinking, being, and acting that is responsive to the complex communicative demands of
intercultural interaction.
Learning Outcomes
After studying this module, you should be able to:
1. Analyze verbal and nonverbal codes in different intercultural communication situations;
2. Discuss how issues in and barriers to effective intercultural communication can be ad-
dressed through intercultural praxis; and
3. Explain the concept of “third space” and its importance in intercultural communicative
settings.
Page 1
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
The first factor is linguistic in nature. This means that the misunderstanding is due to a prob-
lem in lexical comprehension, mishearing utterances, and the complexity of syntax or gram-
mar experienced by the communicative actors. The second factor has to do with pragmatics,
or how the speaker uses words in a specific context. Pragmatic mismatch happens when there
are significant differences in the locutionary act or what is actually said and its literal mean-
ing, the illocutionary act or how it is said or delivered (which has to do with the speaker’s
intent), and the perlocutionary act or the effect of what and how something is said (i.e. the
listener's response). All speech acts have these three levels of meaning, and miscommunica-
tion happens when they are misaligned or when there is a disconnection between what is
conveyed and how it is interpreted. For example, someone would say to you, “It’s warm in
here.” and you think that the speaker is referring to the actual temperature in the room. You
respond by opening the windows to let in some cool air, but the speaker is in fact referring to
a feeling of discomfort or tension triggered by a word you said, and s/he is probably calling
you out indirectly.
Page 2
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
cerity are not observed because of an incomplete understanding of the degree of social dis-
tance, for example. Hua concluded that pragmatic failure occurs when there is a mismatch in
schemas and cultural stereotypes and in the contextualization and framing of meaning be-
tween the communicative actors.
Baldwin and his colleagues (2014) also attributed misunderstandings in intercultural commu-
nication to differences in the systems of meanings governed by semantics and pragmatics.
Semantics is that area of language studies that is concerned with the meanings of words. Dif-
ferences in meaning systems, including the rules that govern speech acts, result in different
communication styles (see Box 1).
Page 3
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Given these differences in verbal communication styles, it is not surprising that intercultural
communication is often not an easy task. However, acknowledging that the codes governing
speech are culturally distinctive can facilitate intercultural communication. The differences in
speech codes come from the psychological and sociological uniqueness of cultures. To inter-
pret speech codes, you have to pay attention to and aim for a deeper understanding of the
language and communication patterns of native speakers.
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 1
Access and read the following articles from the COMM 10 course site on the GE portal in
order to enrich your understanding of communication styles across cultures and their impact
on meaning-making:
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and in-
dividual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Re-
search, 22, 510–543.
Lee, H.E., & Park, H.S. (2011). Why Koreans are more likely to favor “apology”, while
Americans are more likely to favor “thank you”. Human Communication Research,
13(1), 125-146.
Use the following study questions as a guide for reading. You should be able to answer these
questions based on what you understood from the readings.
Page 4
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 2
The previous discussion emphasized the importance of understanding the different verbal
communication styles practiced by people from different cultures. In this in-class activity,
you will look at your own communication style and how your way of communicating affects
your interaction with other people.
The following materials will be provided by your teacher: meta cards, manila paper and
marker.
Procedure
1. Divide yourselves into four groups of equal number. (Count from one to four.)
Page 5
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Page 6
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
a) Why did you chose to resolve the issues involved in your assigned communication
style in that manner?
b) Individually, have you experienced a similar situation before? How did you address
it? Do you wish you could have handled that situation better? How would you have
improved your communicative experience?
—————————————————————————————————————
Nonverbal communication has at least five basic functions (Samovar et al., 2013; Matsamuto
& Hwang, 2012):
1) To express internal states — i.e. to signal emotions, attitudes, and physiological and other
mental states;
2) To construct identities as physical appearance, comportment, and even clothing often-
times serve as basis for judging people;
3) To regulate interaction — for example, nodding to indicate agreement;
4) To repeat the message — i.e. using gestures to emphasize a point; and
5) To substitute for words as when we refer to an object by pointing our lips to a specific
direction or when we fall silent to signify discomfort.
Whether nonverbal communication behaviors are universal or are culturally conditioned was
the subject of debate in the 1960s. Early studies pointed out that various cultural groups share
the same facial expressions of happiness, sadness, anger, and grief. However, culture plays a
significant influence on nonverbal behavior by establishing expectations and norms that dic-
tate the appropriateness of specific nonverbal displays. Differences in nonverbal behaviors,
also called “cultural displays”, among different groups of people are facilitated by rules about
Page 7
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
how to manage and modify emotional expressions according to the situation that people learn
from childhood.
Given these conditions, we are advised to evaluate nonverbal actions carefully before draw-
ing generalizations about them. Assessing nonverbal behaviors without recognizing that they
are rooted in different cultural frameworks and occur in different cultural spaces leads to neg-
ative stereotyping, prejudiced notions, and discrimination. These aversive reactions, which
are caused by using cultural filters that are not situated in the other’s cultural framework, are
issues in intercultural communication. Understanding nonverbal codes can help mitigate this
problem. Nonverbal codes serve as markers of important nonverbal displays that may serve
to highlight similarities and differences, thereby allowing us to adjust our actions in order to
nurture a positive relationship and foster understanding during intercultural encounters. Box
Page 8
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Page 9
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Page 10
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 3
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. (1969) The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, ori-
gins, usage, and coding, Semiotica, 1, 49–98.
Hall, E.T. (1966). The hidden dimension, (113-188). New York, New York: Doubleday and
Company.
Hall, E.T. (1959). Space speaks. The silent language (187-209). Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Company.
Use the following study questions as a guide for reading. You should be able to answer these
questions based on what you understood from the readings.
1. What did Ekman and Friesen say about the usage and origin of nonverbal behavior? How
did they elaborate on the cultural origins of nonverbal behavior?
Page 11
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
The following readings are suggested to help expand your understanding of specific nonver-
bal communication displays in certain cultures and the challenges they pose in intercultural
settings. They are accessible at the COMM 10 course site at the GE portal.
Haptics
Shuter, R. (1976). Nonverbal communication: Proxemics and tactility in Latin America.
Journal of Communication, 26, 46-52.
Oculesics
Gobel, M.S., Chen, A., and Richardson, D.S. (2017). How different cultures look at faces de-
pends on the interpersonal context. Canadian Journal of Experimental Pscyhology,
71, 258-264.
Uono, S., and Hietanen, J.K. (2015). Eye contact perception in the West and East: A cross-
cultural study. PLoS ONE, 10, 1-15. Retrieved from: journals.plos.org/plosone/article/
file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118094&type=printable.
Olfactics
Page 12
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Hastings, S.O., Musambira, G.W., and Ayoub, R. (2011). Revisiting Edward T. Hall’s work
on Arabs and olfaction: An update with implications for intercultural communication
scholarship. Journal of Intercultural Communication and Research, 40, 3-20.
Silence
Nakane, I. (2007). A review of silence in intercultural communication. Silence in intercultural
communication, Perceptions and performance (pp. 5-39). Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands: John Benjamins B.V.
Yates, L., and Nguyen, TQT. (2012). Beyond a discourse of deficit: The meaning of silence
in the international classroom. The International Education Journal: Comparative
Perspectives, 11, 22-34.
—————————————————————————————————————
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 4
This in-class activity1 teaches you to recognize nonverbal cues and reflect on the nonverbal
messages that you send to others. You will consider whether your interpretation of nonverbal
information is affected by the race/ethnicity or gender of the person with whom you are inter-
acting.
Procedure
1. You will be assigned a specific worksheet to answer. There are three worksheets for this
activity but you will answer only one worksheet. The worksheet assignment is done by
counting from one to three.
1 - body language
2 - facial expression
3 - personal space
2. Your teacher will provide you with a printed copy of the worksheet. The worksheets are
also available through the following links:
Body language worksheet - http://breakingprejudice.org/assets/AHAA/Activities/Non-
verbal%20Communication%20Folder/Body%20Language%20Worksheet.pdf
1 Adopted from Johnson, S.B. (2014). Non-Verbal Communication Activity. Available at http://break-
ingprejudice.org/teaching/group-activities/non-verbal-communication-activity/
Page 13
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
3. Answer the worksheet in 10 minutes and prepare to share your answers with your class-
mates.
—————————————————————————————————————
Synthesis
Understanding the verbal and nonverbal communication codes that differentiate cultures from
each other is important in developing intercultural communication competence. They help
individuals recognize the diversity among cultures and guide their actions in order to promote
intercultural understanding. However, culture should not be understood as a monolithic con-
cept. Cultural variations, or co-cultures, exist within nations and the aforementioned verbal
and nonverbal communication behaviors manifest differently among ethnolinguistic groups
within a national boundary. Analysis of communication across cultures should be sensitive to
these inter- and intra-cultural nuances.
Anxiety. This is a state characterized by light to extreme feelings of worry, fear, and insecuri-
ty about meeting and interacting with individuals from a different cultural background. It is
brought about by the uncertainty in intercultural encounters. Internally, it manifests in light to
Page 14
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
excessive mental rehearsals over the quality and the outcome of the interaction. As a result,
the individual is not totally present in the communication transaction; s/he becomes too con-
scious about “making it right,” that s/he is unable to listen and respond appropriately and in-
stead acts in an awkward manner.
Assuming similarity instead of difference. When you assume similarity between cultures
you can be caught unaware of important differences. When you have no information about a
new culture, it might make sense to assume there are no differences and to behave as you
would in your home culture. But each culture is different and unique to some degree. Assum-
ing that other cultures are similar to ours sometimes drive us to impose our way of thinking
and doing things on others. This robs the interaction of its potential to develop into an inter-
esting relationship.
Ethnocentrism. This refers to 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.
In fact, superiority or inferiority is relative. All aspects of a particular culture would make
sense if you understood that culture. For example, resting under a shade at mid-day makes
sense in tropical and subtropical countries. It is not a sign of laziness, as some people from
temperate countries might assume.
Stereotyping. Stereotypes “are widely held beliefs about a group of people” (Jandt, 2017)
and are a form of generalization or a way of categorizing and processing information we re-
ceive about others in our daily life. Normally, stereotypes help us to organize and make sense
of new experiences. However, there is tendency to overgeneralize a group of people as if a
culture and its people have uniform attributes. Jandt reminds us not to ignore nuances in the
individualities and identities of people.
Prejudice. Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a cultural group based on little or no expe-
rience of it. It is a prejudgment of sorts. Whereas stereotypes are generalizations about a
group of people, prejudice is a negative feeling about that group arising from these general-
izations.
Page 15
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Discrimination. The behavior that results from stereotyping or prejudice, specifically overt
actions to exclude, avoid, or distance oneself from other groups, is called discrimination. Dis-
crimination may be based on racism or any of the other “isms” related to belonging to a cul-
tural group (e.g., sexism, ageism, elitism). One way of thinking about discrimination is that it
is the exercise of power based on prejudice, or simply power plus prejudice equals “ism.”
Anxiety brought about by the prospect of and actual intercultural encounters can be addressed
relatively easily compared with the other issues in intercultural communication. For example,
Gudykunst (2005) posited, in his Anxiety-Uncertainty Management Theory (AUMT), that
intercultural communication is not really characterized by differences but by the degree of
strangeness between the communicative actors and this degree of strangeness can be navigat-
ed by being mindful of the “stranger’s” perspective. Mindfulness includes openness to the
novelty of experiencing a new culture, awareness of the distinctions between cultures, sensi-
tivity to different contexts, awareness and acceptance of multiple perspectives, and a sense of
grounding in the present.
Page 16
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Inquiry includes taking an interest in and making a commitment to learn about other cul-
tures, which motivate engagement with other people.
Positioning – Our geographic positions are closely associated with our social and political
positions. Some of us may be in a geographic location that affords us direct access to the ma-
terial and symbolic resources in society. If we acknowledge this central-periphery dichotomy
of political, social, and economic reality, we may be in a better position to recognize that
people have different levels of access to resources and lack of access impacts on people’s
lived realities. We may be able to acknowledge whose voices are dominant, whose voices are
silent.
Reflection refers to the capacity for introspection and being able to modify one’s views and
behavior based on that reflection.
Action – Sorrells argues that it is not enough that we modify our thoughts and feelings in ac-
cordance with the ideals of cultural and political inclusiveness. We must also take action to
help promote a socially just, equitable, and peaceful world.
Page 17
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 5
To deepen your understanding of Sorrell’s framework for intercultural praxis, read the book
chapter listed below. The reading is available at the COMM 10 course site on the GE portal.
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 6
In class, watch “The Lunch Date,” a 10-minute short film that you can access through this
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epuTZigxUY8&t=5s.
After watching the short film, answer the questions below and be ready to share your per-
spectives in class.
1. What does the short film suggest the older White woman had been taught about Black
American men? And what does the short film suggest the Black American man had been
taught about White Americans?
3. What assumptions did the white woman make about the Black American in the diner?
What assumptions did the Black American make about the woman? What actions did each
of them take based on their assumptions about each other? How did the characters’ as-
sumptions about each other affect their ability to communicate their internal states?
Page 18
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
4. Consider the man behind the counter who watched the event unfold. What do you think
does he stand for in that example of a cultural clash that is reflective of the bigger cultural
collisions in our society?
5. What barriers in intercultural communication are evident in the interaction between the
two characters in the short film?
6. Choose one of the two main characters and propose how Sorrells’ framework for intercul-
tural praxis can be applied to improve the character's communicative encounter.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Page 19
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
The term “third space” was coined by Homi Bhabha (1994) to refer to the “in-between” space
in the clash between cultures where meaning and representation are negotiated and cultural
identity can be re-imagined. Individuals from different cultures who interact with each other
make adjustments to their own sense of cultural identity in order to explore new ways of
building relationships. This calls for individuals to be empathetic and attentive to other per-
spectives, to consider the other’s need to understand and be understood, and to co-create a
space where these needs can be fulfilled. The concept of third space therefore challenges the
tendency for “othering” or looking at the world in terms of “us versus them”, by emphasizing
finding commonality and building “ours”. Simply put, the third space is what happens when
people from different cultural backgrounds negotiate meanings when in the same setting
(Kramsch & Uryu, 2012).
—————————————————————————————————————
Activity 7
Read the following essays about intercultural communication and “third space” as a frame-
work for fostering strong intercultural relationships. Use the study questions below as a guide
in making sense of the ideas discussed in the readings.
Kramsch, C., & Uryu, M. (2012). Intercultural contact, hybridity and third space. In J. Jack-
son (Ed.), The handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 211-226).
Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Casmir, F.L. (2016). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercul-
tural communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 16(1),
402-428.
Study questions:
1. What does the concept of “third space” mean?
2. How does the co-creation of a “third space” impact an intercultural encounter between
individuals or between groups? In answering this question, refer to a specific example of
such an encounter that has been featured in the news lately (e.g. a meeting between lead-
Page 20
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
ers or representatives of governments that do not see eye-to-eye, interaction between mi-
grants and locals).
3. What qualities or competencies are needed from actors or participants of an intercultural
interaction to successfully create a “third space”?
—————————————————————————————————————
Conclusion
To sum up, the way we communicate (verbally and nonverbally) is affected by cultural fac-
tors. Understanding cultural differences in how we communicate will help us to be more open
to others and more flexible when communicating interculturally, with the aim of finding a
common ground for meaning-making.
—————————————————————————————————————
Summative Assessment
Task
Case Study of Communication Competence
Objective
The purpose of this case study is to give you an opportunity to study an existing organization
or group’s intercultural communication competence (ICC) using qualitative observation
methods. The case study will use a framework for ICC that you develop in assessing your
chosen subject entity or organization and it must demonstrate your ability to use two to three
verbal and non-verbal codes as units of analysis for communicative behavior. This case study
will help you apply what you have learned about communication and culture in Modules 5
and 6. The case study will allow you to analyze and investigate both the challenges and best
practices in intercultural communication among organizations in the Philippines. This experi-
ence in observing and analyzing ICC is also envisioned to help you develop a mindful inter-
cultural communication practice as a lifelong framework.
Page 21
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
Procedure
1. Form a group of three to four members. Your grouping will be done through drawing of
lots. The limited number of group members will allow each member of the group to fully
participate and be involved in the case study.
2. Choose the organization where you will conduct your case study. The organization must
be a local organization that has been in operation for at least three years. Each group must
study one organization. Groups cannot study the same organization.
3. Secure permission from the organization to conduct your observation through a formal
written request signed by the group leader and noted by the course instructor. Your letter
should emphasize confidentiality of data and participant anonymity. For a deeper appreci-
ation of research ethics, read the article at http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/som-
merdemo/ethics/protect.htm.
4. While awaiting approval of your request from your chosen organization, develop the con-
ceptual framework and research instrument for your study. Read the more detailed guid-
ance on this below.
5. Once your request is approved, proceed with the case study. Gather data through field ob-
servation, interviews, a survey, or a combination of these. Remember to ask permission if
you need to use a recorder during interviews or take a photo or video of people.
6. Write your case study report. Refer to the guidelines on the format of the report below.
7. Submit your case study report to the course instructor on the date s/he stipulates. NOTE:
The timeline for this assignment will be determined by your teacher.
Page 22
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/09000/
Problem_Statement,_Conceptual_Framework,_and.21.aspx
3. Prepare your research instrument (i.e., observation guides for naturalistic observations,
interview schedule, or survey questionnaire) based on your conceptual framework. For a
background on these data gathering techniques, refer to the following online resources:
https://atlasti.com/qualitative-research-methods/
https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/31/3/498/2384737
Other Guidelines
1. Font and line spacing - Font should be Times New Roman (size 12). Line spacing should
be 1.5 and the margin should be 1 inch on all sides of the paper.
Page 23
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
2. Printing - Print your case study report in A4 size, substance 20 bond paper. Collate and
staple on the top left side.
3. Number of pages - The case study must be 5-7 pages long, excluding the title page and
references.
4. Number of copies - Each group must submit one final copy of the case study to the in-
structor
Grading
Grading for the case study will be based on the following criteria:
a. Introduction and Methodology (25%) – Sufficient background of the organization; clear
statement of the problem; clear statement of purpose; clear statement of significance to
intercultural communication theory and practice; concise description of the method of
inquiry (e.g., focus group discussion, in-depth interview, overt observation, or a combina-
tion of these); and concise summation of the study
b. Literature Review (15%) – Effective weaving of credible, appropriate, and recent sources
throughout the paper to strengthen the arguments and theoretical grounding
c. Discussion (30%) – Incisive discussion of findings; identification of observed communi-
cation competence categories and themes; elaboration of themes (i.e., citing the support-
ing observations using the verbal and non-verbal codes discussed in the readings and in
class); clear implications of the results for intercultural communication and the presence/
absence of intercultural competence in the organization; and logical flow of ideas
d. Conclusion and Recommendations (25%) – Incisive concluding statements on insights
from the study; elucidation of the strengths and limitations of the case study; on-point
recommendations to improve intercultural communication competence of the organiza-
tion
e. References (5%) – Correct use of the APA referencing style
—————————————————————————————————————
Page 24
! of !25
COMM 10 – Critical Perspectives in Communication
References
Baldwin, J.R., Means Coleman, R.R., Gonzales, A., & Shenoy-Packer, S. (2014). Intercul-
tural communication in everyday life. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Bhaba, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Burgoon, J.K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. The international encyclopedia of inter-
personal communication. 1-9.
Hua, Z. (2014). Intercultural communication, language in action. Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Kramsch, C., & Uryu, M. (2012). Intercultural contact, hybridity and third space. In J. Jack-
son (Ed.), The handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 211-226).
Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Liu, M. (2016). Verbal communication styles and culture. Oxford research encyclopedia of
communication. Retrieved from http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/
acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-162
Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (2010). Intercultural communication in context (pp. 212-302).
New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill.
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H.S. (2012). Nonverbal communication: The messages of emo-
tion, action, space, and silence. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The handbook of language and
intercultural communication (pp. 130-147). Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Pratt, M.L. (1992). Introduction: Criticisms in the contact zone. Imperial eyes: Travel writing
and transcultural communication. London: Routledge.
Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., McDaniel, E.R., & Roy, C.S. (2013). Intercultural communica-
tion: Interaction in a multi-cultural world. Communication between cultures (8th ed)
(pp. 1-26). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Sorrells, K. (2016). Intercultural communication: Globalization and social justice (pp. 1-24).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C. (2012). What is intercultural communication flexibility?
Understanding intercultural communication (2nd ed) (pp.20-35). Cary: North Caroli-
na: Oxford University Press.
Page 25
! of !25