High-Context and Low-Context Culture - Assignment Example

People from high-context and low-context cultures may find it difficult to understand one another. Choose 2-3cultures as examples and explain why potential difficulties might arise. Name University Introduction The current world is considered as a global village. Technology has made it possible for people from different nationalities, race, and cultural background to come much closer to one another. Besides, it is possible for people from these diverse origins to work together and increase their levels of communication on a daily basis. These approaches are exciting because they help people interact and learn different cultures and social aspects from the diverse cultures and the people representing the diversity. However, such measures can be fraught and frustrating because people from different social dynamics and cultural background interact differently on issues like speech, how to commence a conversation, how to relate to one another, and cultural taboos among other factors. Cultural diversity has different dimensions for consideration when building connections and interactions with people from diverse cultural contexts. One way is to comprehend the existing cultural differences among the groups. For instance, people from high-context cultures and those from low context cultures may find it challenging to understand one another because of the cultural diversities between the two groups. Therefore, to understand how these difficulties may arise, low cultural context represented by the United Kingdom and United States were compared with the high context culture of the Chinese people. The context refers to the level of understanding one have to possess before applying effective communication skills. Comparing the differences between High-context and low-context culture High-context cultural group is characterised by the use of non-verbal approaches to communicate information when conversing (Hall, 1998). Some of these strategies include variation in tone, eye movement, and facial expressions. They consider non-verbal elements of communication as more important than the words used in relaying the message. People prefer learning in groups and solving problems together. Besides, they emphasize on the importance of interpersonal closeness. Individuals engaged in business cannot make transactions until they build trust among themselves (Hall, 1998). Examples in this group include African groups living in Africa, most of the people in the Middle East, Chinese, and Japanese in the Asia, as well as the Brazilians in South America (Huang and Mujtaba 2012). The individuals in the low-context cultural group put more emphasis on facts and logic. When making decisions, facts are considered important than intuitions. Besides, the body language is not as important as the words. Verbal messages and knowledge is considered concise, direct, and explicit. For that reason, knowledge is considered visible because one can convey it to others. However, one interesting feature is that people learn by following explanations and directions from other people. Relationships are not as important as goals and tasks. In fact, actions and decisions should focus on dividing achievable responsibilities (Hall, 1998). Examples in this group include Canada, United States of America, and United Kingdom (Huang and Mujtaba, 2012). Potential sources of difficulties and possible ways solving the problems arising from the two cultural contexts They way people exchange information can be the source of difficulties when individuals from the low-context and high context interact. These difficulties arise from the quality and direction of communication. For instance, Chinese and French people representing the high-context groups have close association with their close colleagues, families and the friends (Chen, 2001). This means that they engage in groupings and take part in intensive exchange of information as recently reported by Kittler, Rygal, and Mackinnon, (2011). Therefore, each member of the group has the updated facts about the business. The people from low-context may find these attributes insulting. Besides, it may signify that the other person does not have integrity. Contrary, the low-context culture groups like the USA do not differentiate like their counterparts. In fact, they orientate with people. Study by Kittler, Rygal and Mackinnon, (2011) found that they tend to prefer a personal approach and communicate outside the groupings. Besides, the quantity of the information they share is limited because they just share the adequate information needed to carry out the chores. Chinese people tend to communicate efficiently because their information has efficient flow both at privacy and at home. Their approach to hold meetings and discussions in advance prior to attending the main chore makes it possible to make and formalise decisions before making announcement at the official work place. On the other hand, Kitayama and Ishii,(2002) showed that the high-context cultures like the Chinese are viewed as offensive and blunt by the westerners because the low-context like USA tend to explain what is obvious to them. Lack of internalisation of these attributes may lead to misunderstanding and confusions when conversing. The language variation differs between the high-context and the low-context cultures. For instance, the Chinese language differs from the European English in various contexts. The Chinese language embeds the meaning of the interlocution (Chen, 2001). This is different because it does not take into account the verbal communication. Besides, the Chinese language takes a tonal perspective unlike the English language that uses stress language. Therefore, effective communication in Chinese will require the English speaking from the United States of America and the United Kingdom to learn word pronunciation as well as the various tonal differences of each word because they possess several meanings (Fromkin et al., 2007). Possible ways to solving the problems arising from the two cultural contexts Although there may be some differences between the British and the American English, the variation may not be significantly different as those learned in the Middle East countries like Japan and China because of the major cultural similarities. The most appropriate way to ensure cohesion in the language communication style is to master the individualistic attributes of the cultural context (Griffin, n.d.). For instance, the Chinese would need to grasp and learn to apply the use of stress on English word and the verbal communication strategy to communicate effectively with individuals from the low-context cultures (USA and UK) (Chen, 2001). Besides, the low-context cultures learning the high-context language like the Chinese language would need to consider tonal variation and avoid using the stress synonymous with the westerners’ language. Effective application as well as appropriate usage of verbal and written communication styles ensures that people from different cultural context interacts and communicate efficiently (Hofstede, 1980). Effective communication resolves issues that may arise from misunderstanding and confusion especially when the people do not take time to comprehend the unique attribute that characterise the language used in communication. According to Griffin, (n.d.) anyone considered successful in communication must takes into account the cultural differences as well as the predominant communication process that defines both the collectivistic and individualistic cultural perspectives of the groups engaged with during the communication. Therefore, understanding the unique attributes of the target group will help an individual avoid some of the simple items that may cause misunderstanding between the high-context and low-context cultures. Adapting to the other cultural context will require in-depth analysis of the items that defines the people belonging to that culture and how to apply them in real life like offices and business (Hermeking, 2005; Parnell and Kedia, 1996). These approaches will ensure people from different cultural context do not offend or confuse each other hence enhancing communication and interaction between the high-context and the low-context cultural perspectives. The Chinese also would need to learn the application of stress on English word as well as the verbal communication to horn their communication skills in readiness to interact with the westerners (Huang and Mujtaba 2012). When these attributes lack from each of the groups, the low-context and the high-context would not understand each other especially if tonal variations and stress of words are not taken into keen consideration in spite of learning either of the two languages. Individuals from the low context cultural background are perceived as intolerant and as lacking the diversity to understand ideas by the high-context individuals, in fact, the explicitness in their communication may cause resentment and offense. Conclusion Cultural diversity is a receipt for emerging conflicts arising from the interactions between individuals from the high-context and the low-context cultural backgrounds especially in the current world that has become a global village. These cultural dimensions differ in different aspects. The Chinese representing the high-context culture and the UK and USA representing the low-context may not communicate well with each other because of the language differences in stress and tonal variations (Chen, 2001). Besides, the mastery of taking part in-group discussions or avoiding the group discussions as well as having the knowledge on the quantity and quality of knowledge to be shared is a necessary consideration because each group has different dimension. Having the knowledge of the right information to share may eliminate the perception of being too blunt or explaining the obvious as may be viewed by the different cultural context. Therefore internalisation of these attributes is the way out to ensure understanding between the high-context and the low—context cultures when conversing. Reference list Chen, M. (2001). Inside Chinese business: A guide for managers worldwide. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth. Griffin, E. (n.d.) ‘Archived chapter: A First Look at Communication Theory’. Retrieved from www.afirstlook.com Hall, E.T. (1989) Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books. Hermeking, M. (2005) ‘Culture and Internet Consumption: Contributions from Cross- Cultural Marketing and Advertising Research’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 192–216. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Huang, KY and Mujtaba, B.G. (2012). Stress, Task, and Relationship Orientations of Taiwanese Adults: An Examination of Gender in this High-Context Culture, Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies Kitayama, S. And Ishii, K. (2002). Word and voice: spontaneous attention to emotional utterances in two languages. Cognition and Emotion, 16(1), pp. 29- 59. Kittler, G., Rygal, D., and Mackinnon, A. (2011) ‘Beyond culture or beyond control? Reviewing the use of Hall’s high-/low-context concept’. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11(1), 63-82. Parnell, J. And Kedia, B. (1996). The impact of natural culture on negotiating behaviour across borders. International journal of value-based management, 9(1), 45-61 Ramsey, S.J (1998). Interactions between North Americas and Japanese: Considerations of communication style. In M.J. Bennett (ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication. Maine: Intercultural Press, pp. 111-130 Schwartz, S. H. (1992) ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries’. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1-66) San Diego: Academic Press. Read More