Tính cá nhân và tính tập thể trong thư tín thương mại tiếng anh và tiếng việt

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
***********************

VI THỊ THU HẰNG

INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE BUSINESS LETTERS
(TÍNH CÁ NHÂN VÀ TÍNH TẬP THỂ TRONG THƢ TÍN
THƢƠNG MẠI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 02 01

HANOI – 2017


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
***********************

VI THỊ THU HẰNG

INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE BUSINESS LETTERS
(TÍNH CÁ NHÂN VÀ TÍNH TẬP THỂ TRONG THƢ TÍN
THƢƠNG MẠI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 02 01
Supervisor: Nguyễn Hòa, Prof.

HANOI - 2017


DECLARATION

I hereby certify the thesis entitled “Individualism and Collectivism in
English and Vietnamese business letters” as my own work in the fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
Hanoi, 2017

Vi Thị Thu Hằng

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to a number of people who have
assisted my research work.
First, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor,
Prof. Nguyễn Hòa, for his enthusiastic and careful guidance as well as his
encouragements.

Second, I am extremely grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn for his
suggestions and Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Quang for hisexplanations that have enlightened
my research path.
Last but not least, I would like to give my great thanks to all my teachers at
Faculty of Post-Graduated Department at University of Languages and International
Studies for their devotion and their useful lectures.

ii


ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate the manifestations of Individualism and
Collectivism in English and Vietnamese business letters by analyzing how they play
out in the use of pronouns (I vs. We); communication styles (High vs. low context
communication and direct vs. indirect communication styles); self-construal (selfenhancement vs. self-effacement); and face (self-face vs. others-face concern) and
facework (positive and negative politeness strategies). The results appear to
contradict the general perception that Vietnamese culture is valued toward
Collectivism and British and American culturesare valued toward Individualism.
Although manifestations of both Individualism and Collectivism are indentified in
EBLs and VBLs, EBLs tend to incline towards collectivistic values and VBLs leans
towards individualistic values. The data indicates that, in business context, business
letters act as a channel of communication, in which, the writers are representatives
of their company. Thus, their behavior is adjusted to be appropriate for specific
context to pursue certain purposes. The writer varies from Individualism to
Collectivism and vice versa.This study indicates that cultural assumptions about
individual characteristics based on where she or he comes from should be treated as
reference, not confirmed truths.

iii

ABBREVIATIONS

BLs

Business letters

COL

Collectivism

EBLs

English business letters

FTAs

Face threatening acts

H

Addressee

IDV

Individualism

S

Speaker

VBLs

Vietnamese business letters

iv


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: The key difference between Collectivist and Individualist Societies

7

Table 2.1: The frequency of first person pronouns in EBLs and VBLs

21

Table 2.2: The percentages of speech acts used for giving offer, promises and
threats or making orders, requests, and commands.

31

Table 2.3: The frequency of “show off” words in EBLs and VBLs

34

Table 2.4: The frequency of using person pronouns “I/ We/ You” in EBLs and VBLs

37

Table 2.5: The address forms in EBLs

43

Table 2.6: The address forms in VBLs

44

v


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: IDV/ COL Index Scores

9

Figure 1.2:The relationships in business letters

11

vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii

ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
1. Rationale ..............................................................................................................1
2. Aims of the study .................................................................................................2
3. Research questions ...............................................................................................2
4. Scope of the study ................................................................................................3
5. Methodology ........................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................5
1.1 Definition of Individualism and Collectivism ...................................................5
1.2 Two opposite poles or two separate dimensions ...............................................5
1.3 Attributes of IDV and COL ...............................................................................6
1.4 Previous studies .................................................................................................8
1.5 Individualism and Collectivism in Business letters .........................................10
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................13
2.1 Data and Procedure ..........................................................................................13
2.2 Analytical framework ......................................................................................13
2.2.1 Language Use ............................................................................................14
2.2.2 Communication styles ...............................................................................15
2.2.3 Self-Construal: Self-enhancement& Self-effacement ...............................17
2.2.4 Face and Facework ....................................................................................18
CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................21
3.1 Language Use ..................................................................................................21
3.2 Communication styles .....................................................................................23

vii


3.2.1 Low- and High-context communication ...................................................23

3.2.2 Direct and Indirect styles ...........................................................................27
3.3 Self-Construal: Self-enhancement and Self-effacement..................................33
3.4 Face and Facework ..........................................................................................36
3.4.1 Self-face concern vs. Other-face concern .................................................36
3.4. 2 Negative and positive politeness strategies ..............................................39
CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................51
4.1 Recapitulations.................................................................................................51
4.2 Implications .....................................................................................................52
4.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................53
4.4 Suggestions for further studies ........................................................................53
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................54
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I

viii


INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
IDV and COL are two of the cultural dimensions beside Power distance,
Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity and Femininity, Long- versus Short-Term
Orientation, and Indulgence versus Restraint which are added in 2010 by Geert
Hofstede (1997, 1980, 1983, 2001, 2010)– a famous Dutch social psychologist.
Hofstede‘s studies showed that European countries like the United States of
America, Britain, France, Denmark, etc have high IDV Index and countries
likeChina, Russia, Singapore, and Vietnam have low IDV Index.
In 1995, Triandis published a book named ―Individualism and Collectivism‖
which explored the constructs of IDV and COL. He drew an important conclusion
that no society is ―purely‖ individualist or collectivist (1995:27). He also indicated
that we get full distribution of these both values in every culture. There are people
who act more like collectivists in the individualist society and vice versa, there are

people who act like individualists in the collectivist society. The culture pattern is
situation specific. It would be erroneous to assume that any culture is exclusively
IDV or COL; IDV and COL should be viewed as two cultural orientations.
Hofstede (2001) referred to the report of Leung and Bond (1984) on two
laboratory experiments with psychology students in Hong Kong and the United
States about sharing a reward with an unreal working partner.In the experiments,
subjects imaginarily did more or less than their partner andthen chose the way of
reward allocation that could be equity based on performance or equality based on
equal sharing. The collectivist Hong Kong Chinese chose equality when their
choices were public, but equity when they were kept private; The choice of the
Hong Kong students also differed for in-group and out-group members while the
American students‘ choices were stable, they chose equity more often than equality.
The experiments concluded that―Chinese behavior was much more context
dependent than the American behavior‖ (Hofstede, 2001, p.239). It was the

1


experiments that inspired me to investigate Vietnamese behavior and American
behavior in business settings.
With the globalization of world economy, business communication is
becoming increasingly important. Business letters, being a major form of
communication in the commercial world, play a significant role in the
administration and operation of a business. They are special discourses with their
own properties; however, they are still products of language and culture.
The arising questions are, in the age of information technology, with easy
access to various information sources and high intercultural exchange frequency,
how IDV and COL are manifested in EBLs and VBLs; and which cultural
orientation is dominant in VBLs and EBLs.
In order to seek answers for those questions, the research is conducted by

analyzing 45 business letters in English and 45 letters in Vietnamese.
2. Aims of the study
The assumption of the study: it is generally believed that Vietnamese
culture is toward Collectivism while British and American cultures are toward
Individualism.
The study aims at testing this assumption in the case of business letters. It
attempts to provide a better understanding of these two cultural values and examine
how they operate in specificbusiness situations. The study also investigates
similarities and differences between EBLs and VBLs in term of IDV and COL.
I hope the findings of the study will assist intercultural communication
andoffer suggestions for teachers‘ choices of teaching approaches and for students
when they teach and studybusiness letters.
3. Research questions
The study is conducted to offer answers for the following questions:
1. How are IDV and COL manifested in EBLs and VBLs?
2


2. Which cultural pattern, IDV or COL, is dominantin VBLsand in EBLs?
4. Scope of the study
In today‘s world, business letters are used more and more commonly as an
effective means of transaction. Business letters convey messages of not only the
writers but also the organizations they stand for, which are directly affected by
cultural values of the writers, their organizations, and their countries. In order to
deeply understand business letters, the readers should examine cultural values and
how these factors affect business letters.
Due to limited resources and within the frame of a minor thesis, the research
focuses on investigating only 45 business letters in English and 45 business letters
in Vietnamese.
Datawere collected mainly from the internet and some private companies.

The collected data includes different types of business letters such as sales letters,
order letters, complaint letters, responses to complaint letters, adjustment letters,
and thank you letters.
With such a small number of reference letters, this study may be treated as a
case study. Thus, the results of the study might not be generalized to all kinds of
business letters in all situations.
5. Methodology
As mentioned in the previous part, the study may be conducted as a case
study in order to test the assumption that Vietnamese culture is COL and American
culture is IDV in the case of business letters.
The study starts at analyzing linguistic manifestations in business letters
based on markers ofIDV and COL andthen drawing conclusions; thus the approach
to the study is inductive.
The study is qualitative and descriptivesince linguistic studies are observable
and regarded as humanities. Qualitative method, which is viewed as a general
3


approach to explore problems, has been preferred by most linguists as the linguistic
research methodology (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative method will be used
to examine and access the effects of linguistics aspects such as vocabulary, sentence
structures, grammatical properties (pronouns, modality, and so on), and textual
features. The descriptive method has been adopted for the investigation and
presentation of data throughout the research. Thus, the research based on a fair
amount of description, presenting letters as they are.

4


CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 Definition of Individualism and Collectivism
Cultural variation in terms of IDV versus COL is considered one of the most
well known cultural continuums (Hofstede, 1997, 1980, 1983, 2001, 2010; Kim,
Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994, Triandis, 1995; Hui & Triandis, 1986). The terms IDV
and COL are employed to explain cultural differences in different parts of the
world; however they are given various meanings (Triandis, 1995).
Hofstede (2001) gives one-line definitions of IDV and COL viewed as two
poles of a dimension of national culture. According to Hofstede, in individualist
cultures, the relationships between individuals are loose; thus, people tend to look
after themselves and their nuclear family. In collectivist cultures, on the other hand,
individuals closely link with their groups like their nuclear family, their extended
family, the village society, and the tribe.
Triandis (1995) based on the relationship between individuals and their group
provides the definitionof these constructs. He defines COL as a social pattern
consisting of closely linked individuals and IDV as a social pattern consisting of
loosely linked individuals. He explains that collectivists view themselves as parts of
collectives who are motivated by the social norms, duties, and obligations and
individualists view themselves as independent of collectives who are motivated by
their own pleasures or personal advantages, needs, rights, and the contracts they
have established with others.
In short, COL and IDV are viewed as ‗‗cultural syndromes‘‘ that differentiate
between cultures in terms of beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles, values and behaviors
(Triandis, 1995).
1.2 Two opposite poles or two separate dimensions
As mentioned above, Hofstede (2001) gives one-line definitions of IDV and
COL. He argues that the two should be seen as two poles of a dimension at country
5

level because of the fact that the alternative solutions are used for the same basic
dilemma of societies.On the other hand, at the individual level, a person can have
characteristics of both individualist and collectivist at the same time, so the two
constructs can be treated as two separate dimensions.Thus, an individual can be
both individualist and collectivist, ―but a country culture is predominantly either
one or the other‖ (Hosftede, 2001, p. 293). It should be aware that ―Countries may
be anywhere in between two extreme pictured, not all connotations apply in all
countries, and an individual within countries can deviate from social norms‖
(Hosftede, 2001, p. 255).
Triandis and colleagues‘ research has found that IDV and COL are
multidimensional at both the cultural level and individual level (Gelfand et al.,
1996). Both collectivist and individualist elements can be found in any cultures.
Moreover individuals have both individualistic and collectivist cognitive elements.
They may convert situations into collectivist or individualistic ones (Triandis,
1995). Germany, as an example, though overall quite individualistic, is also
collectivist in certain respects.
In this case study, I view IDV and COL as a continuum line at which
countries, cultures, societies, or individuals can be anywhere. From these
viewpoints, it can be assumed thatIDV and COL are contextual or situational. As
Triandis (1995) concluded, the situation is a major determinant of the behavior.
That would explain the case of Chinese students mentioned in the rationale, who
change behavior according to particular situations.
1.3Attributes of IDVand COL
According to Triandis (1995), there are four defining attributes of IDV and
COL. The first one is that the self is interdependent (individualist) or independent
(collectivist) of their group. The second is concerned with the goals of group and
individual goals, which ones have priority. Individualists give priority to their
personal goals and vice versa; collectivists put more emphasis on the group goals.

6

Which determines one person‘s behavior is the third one. In collectivist cultures,
norms, obligations, and duties guide behavior, whereas, in individualistic cultures,
attitudes, personal needs, individual rights, and the contracts the individuals
established with others are important determinants of behavior. The last is that one
is willing to end the relationship with group or not. Whereas, collectivists stay in
unpleasant groups or relationships, individualists tend to leave unsatisfactory
relationships(Kim, 1994).
Hofstede (2001) investigates IDV and COL in different relationships and
different aspects. A general overview of the differences between societies that are
either individualistic or collectivist is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1.1:The key differences between Collectivist and Individualistic Societies
(Hofstede, 2001, p. 226, 227, 236, 237)
Domains
Societal Norm

Low IDV
High IDV
―We‖ consciousness
―I‖ consciousness
―Shame‖ cultures
―Guilt‖ cultures
High-context communication
Low-context communication
In the Family
Nuclear family
Extended family
In Personality and Low public self-consciousness
High public self-consciousness

Behavior
Other-directed behavior
Extravert and acting behavior
Attitudes toward others depend on Attitudes
toward
others
their group membership
independent of group membership
Harmony: confrontations to be avoided Confrontations are normal
In Language and Languages in which the word I is Languages in which the word I is
Group identity
not pronounced.
indispensable for understanding.
At School
Purpose of education is learning Purpose of education is learning
how to do.
how to learn.
In
the
Work In business, personal relationships In business, task and company over
Situation
prevail over task and company.
personal relationships prevail.
Belief in collective decisions
Belief in individual decisions
Entrepreneurs claim contribution Entrepreneurs claim own results
of others to their results.
without depending on others.
In the Applicability Management of groups
Managements of individuals

of
Management Employee has to be seen in family Employee has to be seen as
Methods
and social context.
individual.
In
Consumer Social network main source of Media main source of information
Behavior
information

7


The IDV Societal Norm: The societal norms are value systems of major
groups of population which concern various domains of life such family patterns,
role differentiation, social stratification, education systems, religion, political
systems,

etc.

For

example,

whereas

individualists

prefer

high-context

communication, collectivists often use low-context communication. Identity of
individualist is based on the individual, but collectivists based on the social system
(e.g. I am a mother; I am a staff of X company; etc.);
To investigate how IDV and COL are manifested in business letters, based on
the attributors of INV and COL and functions of business letters, I will analyze four
domains including I/ WE use,Communication styles, Self-construal, and Facework.
These domains will be discussed more specifically in the Chapter 2.
1.4Previous studies
Geert Hofstede, who is a Dutch social psychologist, is well known for his
researches on cross-culturalvalues with six dimensions named Power Distance
Index, IDV vs. COL, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index,
Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Normative Orientation, and Indulgence vs.
Restraint (Hofstede, 2010). Hofstede tried to measure the differences of cultures by
developing first five cultural dimensions and discussed on them in his books,
Culture‘s Consequences (1980, 2001); and, in 2010, he added the sixth one,
Indulgence vs. Restraint, in his book Cultures and Organization (2010). Hofstede
established IDV and COL as the most viable constructs to differentiate cultures. His
researches have been considered groundbreaking in many scholarly sections.
In 1995, Harry Triandis, a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois
at

Urbana-Champaign,

published

his

book

―INDIVIDUALISM

&

COLLECTIVISIM‖, which was praised by Geert Hofstede. Geert Hofstede wrote
that this book would be the main resource for researchers who are interested in the
distinction of INV and COL. In the book, Triandis summarized research findings of
himself and other researchers and gave his own experience to provide an overview

8


of IND and COL for the reader. In my study, I draw on his book as main resource
beside Hofstede‘s (2001).
Vietnam, according to the research findings of Hofstede, with the IDV Index
of 20, is classified as a collectivist society. In comparison with other countries
(Figure 1), Vietnamese IDV Index is, the same as Chinese culture, considerably
lower than IDV Index of Western countries. The highest IDV Index belongs to the
United States.

Individualism/ Collectivism Index
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30

20
10
0
United
States

Great
Britain

Australia Germany

China

Japan

Russia

Vietnam

Figure 1.1: IDV/ COL Index Scores (Hofstede, 2001, p. 500, 501)
In the research studies on Vietnamese literature, COL is considered as a
typical value of Vietnam culture due to the conditions of history, geography, nature
and society as well as Confucian attitudes.Parks and Vu (1994) found that the
societal norms of Vietnamese society are mainly collectivistic. Recently,
researchers and psychologists have been interested in this subject in the modern
context of Vietnam.
In 2002, Đỗ Long and Phan Thị Mai Hương edited a book named ―TÍNH
CỘNG ĐỒNG TÍNH CÁ NHÂN VÀ ―CÁI TÔI‖ CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT NAM HIỆN
NAY‖ – Collectivism, Individualism and “the self” of Vietnamese Today. The book
9

presents researches on IDV and COL in Vietnamese modern days that involve the
globalizing tendency and the great development of technology. Hofstede (2001)
comments that technological modernization represents the major force of culture
change. The study indicates that these two culture patterns vary according to
gender, situations, and sub-cultures of geographical regions. Basically, Vietnamese
are still more collectivistic than high individualistic countries such as America,
Great Britain, Japan, and Korea. However, the culture is headed toward being more
individualistic with each generation.
Hannah Hanh et al. (2010) conducted a study on the effects of IDV and COL
on co-operation in workgroups at three different levels including societal,
organizational, and personal. 153 American business students and 207 Vietnamese
counterparts are participants who represent sequentially for an individualistic
society and a collectivistic society. The study gave surprising results that
Vietnamese sample was less collectivist and more individualistic than the American
sample. It was explained that Vietnamese sample might not be representative of the
collectivist societal norms because of the business-oriented nature of the
Vietnamese sample and the high adaptive ability of the American sample. From
these studies, it is concluded that INV and COL are circumstantial and individual.
They vary from circumstance to circumstance and from individual to individual.
In short, in the global age, the distinction of IDV and COLthat involves
cultural shocks or cultural conflicts in intercultural communication has become the
main challenge to all countries. Especially, under the impact of the globalization of
economy, engagements, trade, and communication, these values are changing.
Therefore, it is still an interesting subject for researchers who study not only
cultures and psychology but also business and communication.
1.5Individualism and Collectivism in Business letters
Business letters are formal messages or communication between, to, or from
businesses. The letter can address anyone, but not limited to clients, customers,

10


managers, agencies, suppliers, and other business personnel or organizations. They
are legal documents or records between the interested parties, which convey
messages ranging from routine, personal matters to complex, controversial matters.
The goal is typically to share neutral, good, or negative news or persuade readers to
take a specific course of actions. The purpose of business letters leads the writers to
choose appropriate strategies. However, writing strategies are also affected by
cultural factors including IDV and COL.
IDV and COL relate to people‘s relationships with others and their social
groups. SinceBLs are used as means of communication between business people,
firms, and the writers standnot only for themselves but also for their firms, people‘s
relationships in business letters are complicated, illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 1.2: People relationships in business letters
The arrows represent for relationships established in business letters. The
writers may establish not only business relationship but also personal relationship,
which is a characteristic of collectivists who respect relationships and adjusttheir
behavior to maintain harmony with social context. In contrast, individualists view
themselves separate from social context, so they do not focus on statuses, roles, and
relationships.
The relationships that the writers want to establish in business letters will
affect the way they use personal pronouns, communication styles, politeness
strategies, as well as the way they express themselves. For example, in letter No.
1.32, the writer uses pronouns ―I‖ and ―You‖ to establish personal relationship with
the receiver ―I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to

11

you for your very activeparticipation in our recent conference in Montreal on the
"future of aviation"”. However, in the letter No. 1.17, the writer use We “We
wanted to personally reach out and let you know that we sincerely regret the
frustration and inconvenience that our delay in shipping your order this season may
have caused you, your organization or your supporters.”
Business letters are impacted by not only the writers‘ culture but also the
readers‘ culture. In order to pursue specific purposes, the writers may attempt to
convey their messagessuitably with the readers‘ culture as well as the readers‘
organizational culture.
Due to the functions of business letters, four attributors of IDV and COL,
named Language use, Communication styles, Self-construal, and Face and
Facework are selected to investigate more details. Business letters are special texts
using language for specific purposes and for communicating. The writers, through
business letters, not only convey messages of their companies but also express
themselves.In Chapter 2, I will present about these attributors as the analytical
framework.

12


CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Data and Procedure
In this study, data, EBLs and VBLs, are collected randomly and mainly from
the Internet and some Vietnamese private companies. The collected data includes45
letters written in English and 45 letters written in Vietnamese of different types.
My work involves foursteps. The first step is investigating main concepts
related to the study asIDV, COL, and business letters through previous researches.
These core concepts are important to analyze data in the right way, so it is necessary

to define them correctly. Based on the researches of Hofstede (2001), Triandis
(1995), I will clarify the definition of IDV and COL. The second step is studying
attributes of IDV and COL as well as properties of business letters to find out an
analytical framework. Since letters are employed as means of communication in
business, which lend a hand to the writers, pursue their objectives, they depend
much on business contexts, relationships between the reader and the writer, and
cultures of both the writer and the reader. Thus, to analyze business letters, it
requires investigating these factors. The third step is using descriptive method,
which is suitable to use in a case study to investigate deeply particular behaviors of
individuals or a group of individuals to test a hypothesis, to depictthe collected data
in accordance with the analytical framework.Data analysis and discussion will base
on three levels involving availability, proportionality, and manifestation. Finally,
basing on the findings drawn from the previous step, I come to conclusions and
point out some implications as well as limitations. Relying on limitations of the
study, some suggestions will be offered for further studies.
2.2 Analytical framework
As mentioned before, basing on attributors of IDV and COL and functions of
business letters,

I

decided

to

choose four

domainsincluding

Language

use,Communication styles, Self-construal, Face and Facework, as the analytical
13


framework. Firstly, Language use closely relates to the frequency of usingpersonal
pronounsI or We. In business letters, the writers are on behalf of both their company
and themselves. They convey their company message as well as express who they
are. Therefore, they can use personal pronoun ―I‖ or ―We‖ or omit personal
pronouns for objectiveness. Secondly, Communication styles connect with Lowand High-context communication; and Direct and Indirect styles. Letters are means
of communication in business; so communication styles chose by the writers will be
discussed in the relation with IDV and COL. Thirdly, Self-construal is concerned
with self-enhancement and self-effacement. Finally yet importantly, Face involves
self-face and other-face concern; Facework is defined with positive and negative
politeness strategies. The analytical framework will be discussed and clarifiedwith
sub-features in the next part.
2.2.1 Language Use
Language is considered a clearly recognizable part and a manifestation of culture.
People use language to reflecttheir thinking, attitudes, characters, and culture.
Therefore, Hofstede (2001) stated that language is not a neutral vehicle of culture.
Kashima and Kashima (1998) analyzed the relationship between culture and
language through the study ―The Case of Cultural Dimensions and Personal
Pronoun Use‖. They concluded that people in collectivist cultures frequently use
―we‖ and individualists frequently use ―I‖. In fact, the languages used by people in
collectivist cultures often do not require the use of ―I‖ and ―you,‖ whereas the
languages used by individualists do (Kashima & Kashima 1998). Based on this
study, Hofstede (2001) gave one key difference in term of language between IDV
and COL is that Ipronoun does not need to be pronounced in the language spoken in
collectivist societies, but it is indispensable for understanding in the language
spoken in individualistic societies.

Na and Choi (2009) studying on culture and first-person pronouns found that,
compared with their individualistic counterparts, collectivists preferred to use firstperson plural possessive pronouns (we, our, us, ours).
14


In short, the frequency of personalpronouns used in business letters and the
way using them can unveil some markers of IDV and COL.
2.2.2 Communication styles
2.2.2.1 High and low context communication
Much of the work that deals with the differences between high and low
context cultures has been proposed by the anthropologist Edward Hall (1976).
According to Hall (1976), cultures can be divided into high-and low-context
cultures involving high- and low-context communication. However, Gudykunst and
Ting-Toomey argue that these two styles of communication are one aspect of COL
and IDV (cited in Hofstede, 2006). Hofstede (2006) also agrees with this point and
states that high-context communication is characteristic of collectivist society and
low-context communication is characteristic of individualistic society.
The context is indentified as an extension of background, the system, and the
circumstance in which there is an ongoing communicative act. The context is the
most important factor to clarify high- and low-context cultures.
Hall's definition of high and low context cultures involves the way people
communicate and the idea of how much information is conveyed explicitly in the
communicated message. A high context culture has very little information in the
explicit part of the message while a low context culture relies heavily on the explicit
part of the message.
In high context culture, the message cannot be understood fully without a
great deal of background information (Hooker, 2008). The language is involving
with redundant expressions. The burden of meaning falls on the readers, so the
readers have to interpret implicit meaning through context, background knowledge,
social and cultural norms and other sources.

On the other hand, in low-context society, people tend to put more meaning in
the language code and very little meaning in the context. Therefore, communication
―tends to be specific, explicit, and analytical‖ (Zaharna, 1995:241). The participants in

15