Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ anh việt, sự lĩnh hội về khoảng cách trong các nền văn hóa khác nhau

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

HOÀNG PHƯỢNG

ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE CROSS-CULTURAL NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT
CULTURES
(Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội về khoảng cách trong các nền văn
hoá khác nhau)

M.A. MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8020201.01

HANOI – 2018

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI


UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

HOÀNG PHƯỢNG

ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE CROSS-CULTURAL NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT
CULTURES
(Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội về khoảng cách trong các nền văn hoá khác
nhau)

M.A. MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8020201.01
Supervisor: Prof. NGUYỄN HÒA

HANOI - 2018

2


DECLARATION
I hereby certify the thesis entitled “English-Vietnamese cross-cultural
nonverbal communication: understanding proxemics in different cultures” 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, 2018

Hoàng Phượng

3


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To be able to complete this thesis, I have been whole-heartedly supported by
many people to whom I would like to express my sincere thanks for their valuable
contribution.
First of all, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my beloved

supervisor, Prof. Nguyễn Hòa. He was the one who advised, supported, encouraged,
supervised, and inspired me throughout the realization of this thesis. I highly
appreciate his valuable advice, detailed comments, enthusiastic and careful
guidance as well as his great patience throughout this process.
Second of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere
thanks to my respectful lectures in Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies at University of
Languages and International Studies for their devotion and their fascinating, and
informative lectures which have provided me useful information to fulfill this
thesis.
What is more, I would like to give my great thanks to my colleagues and my
students for their willingness to participate in this project. Without them, this study
would have been impossible.
Last but not least, I owe particular thanks to my family and my friends who
have enthusiastically assisted and encouraged me to finish this thesis.

4


ABSTRACT
Conversational distance has been the focus of hundreds of previous research
studies. However, the conclusions of previous studies on interpersonal distance
preferences were limited, especially the conclusions on Vietnamese’s preferable
proxemic distance were also restricted due to some certain problems of research
methodologies. The objective of the present study was to find out the preferred
social, personal and intimate distances of Vietnamese communicators as a case of
proxemics behavior. This study also indicated the factors which have influence on
interpersonal distance of Vietnamese communicators, in which a number of research
methods were exploited. The values of preferred conversational distance, then, can
be used as a reference in related future research.

5


TABLE OF CONTENTS

6


LIST OF TABLES

7


PART A
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study
This study was conducted because of several reasons. In the first place,
proxemics can be considered as one of the most prominent aspects to investigate the
manifestation of nonverbal communication and to emphasize its significance in
human life. However, there has not been enough studies giving rise to proxemics
findings. In fact, none of the previous research has been performed to find out
Vietnamese common conversational distance.
In the second place, misbehavior in proxemics within cross-cultural
communication, especially in multicultual or multinational working environment,
might unexpectedly arise and entail misunderstanding then cultural shock, or even
communication breakdown. Thus, the reviewing of proxemics behaviors in other
mutual cultures in that great success in communication can be necessary.
Finally, nonverbal communication with attention is given to proxemics
behaviour has been one of my interest as a researcher. Hence, I am intending to
explore and discuss conversational distances and how it affects human

communication. Apparently, the ways Vietnamese informants apply conversational
distances will be explored and analysed. The findings and results of this study
would somehow expectedly raise the awareness that how important the nonverbal
communication would be. Also, the findings would focus on the preferred
conversational distance of Vietnamese communicators and then

provide

recommendations to American speakers in order avoid culture shocks and
misunderstandings while interacting with Vietnamese informants.

2. Aims of the study
This thesis is inspired by Hall’s work. He creates a framework which
indicated a need for my study. The purpose of this study is to find the factors that
affect the proxemics behaviors between Vietnamese dyads, mainly: age, gender,
marital status, power distance, living area, and character of the informants. In
8


addtion, it examines and explores the proxemic distances preferred by Vietnamese
speakers during communication process.

3. Research questions:
The study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the factors that affect the conversational distance between Vietnamese
dyads?
2. What is the proxemic distance preferred by Vietnamese speakers during
communication process?

4. Scope of the study

This study focuses on only conversational distance, as one of the three areas
of proxemics (including space, distance and territory). However, the researcher was
delivering an overview of all aspects as listed.
Specifically, this research particularly identified conversational distance in
American-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication. The data of
American informants would be supposed to be the baseline data, which will be
gathered through previous studies related to this field. That means, the data of
English communicators would be secondary data in which the author tried to exploit
the sources or materials from studies reported in researches, reports, professional
journals and books. The data of Vietnamese dyads, however, will be collected as
primary one, those will be gathered for the first time and thus happen to be original
in character.

5. Structure of the thesis
The study is divided into three main parts as follow:
Part A: Introduction covers the rationale for study, aims, research questions, the
scope, and structure of the study.
Part B: Development is organized around three chapters as follows:
Chapter I - Literature review provides the theoretical framework of the study
related to different approaches of proxemics behavior in different cultures, mainly
English and Vietnamese cultures. In this chapter, the author intends to give
9


explanations on the appropriate framework of proxemics that will be applied to the
study.
Chapter II - Methodology presents the context, the methodology of the research
which states the research design, data instruments including and questionnaires,
informal interviews as well as videotaped recordings in order to find the
conversational distance between communicative dyads. Also, one-way ANOVA and

Independence Sample t-test became the appropriate statically formulas which helps
the author analyze the data involved. A brief description of the participants of the
study, data collection procedure and summary of the methodology could be found in
this chapter.
Chapter III – Findings and Discussions describes and discusses the major findings
involving the issues of what factors affect and which factor has the most influence
on the conversational distances favored by Vietnamese talkers. Still, the detailed
explanation for the dissimilarities of preferable interpersonal distance of the two
cultures will be addressed in this chapter.
Part C: Conclusion offers a summary of the findings, from which
recommendations, limitations, and future directions for further related studies can
also be drawn out.

PART B
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the theoretical issues related to the topic of the
current study. This part will present a variety of definition and type of nonverbal
communication.

10


1.1 . What is communication?
Communication occurs when we intentionally use symbols – words or nonspoken symbols – to create meaning for others (Jandt, 2015). There have been
numerous definitions of “communication” since it is one of the most basic
perceptions of humans. According to Nguyen Quang (1994), the word
“communication” can be simply defined as “the process of sharing meaning
through verbal and non-verbal behavior.”
Hybels, S. and Weaver, R (1992:5) identified that “communication is any

process in which people share information, ideas and feelings that involve not only
the spoken and written words but also body language, personal mannerisms and
style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a message.”
According to Jandt (2015), communication has two critical functions:


Communication is the means by which individuals learn appropriate behaviors and



the means by which those behaviors are regulated.
Communication is the means by which individuals having one group identity
interact with individuals with other group identities and on a more general level the
means by which the groups interact with one another as formal groups.

1.2 . What is nonverbal communication?
In the study of communication, nonverbal behavior has been observed to
possess significant meaning. Nonverbal messages consist of eye contact and gaze,
facial expression, touching, posture, posture and gesture, proxemics, and nonverbal
vocalization (Argyle, 1988; Shulman & Penman, 1981). According to Jandt (2015),
messages sent without using words are nonverbal communication. Culture
determines nonverbal meanings within a society, or, the same nonverbal signal can
mean different things to different people in different cultures. In actuality, nonverbal
communication has been defined in various ways by different scholars. The most
common definition is that nonverbal communication comprises all behaviors that
are not words (cited in Laura & Kory, 2006). However, some scholars define
nonverbal communication more narrowly. Burgoon, Buller and Woodall (1996)
11

conceptualized nonverbal communication as subset of nonverbal behavior. Also,
Hall (1959) stated that culture itself serves as a means of communication. That is,
culturally determined behaviors associated with verbal communication affect that
communication.
Simply defined, nonverbal communication is the way of expressing meaning
or feeling without words. In other words, messages sent without using words are
nonverbal communication. According to Levine and Adelman (1993), “nonverbal
communication is the “silent” language, including the use of gestures, facial
expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance.”
Hall (1965) stated nonverbal communication as “culture hides much more
than it reveals, and strangely enough, what is hides, it hides most effectively from
its own”. Nonverbal cues can be meta-messages that affect the decoding of spoken
message. Nonverbal can reinforce the underlying meaning of verbal message.
Some scholars preferred to define nonverbal communication in indirect
ways, in which they focus on what is included within the study of nonverbal
communication. Leathers (1997) conceptualized nonverbal communication in terms
of “three major interacting systems: the visual communication system, the auditory
communication system, and the invisible communication system” (p.13). According
to Leathers (1997), the visual communication system tends to produce the most
shared meaning within face-to-face interaction. This system includes kinesics (e.g.,
body movement, gestures, eye behavior, and facial expression), proxemics (e.g.,
space, distance, and territory), and artifacts (e.g., physical appearance, clothing,
adornment such as jewelry or briefcase).
Also, nonverbal communication can be defined by types. The types of
nonverbal communication given the most attention can be proxemics, kinesics,
chronemics, paralanguage, silence, haptics, artifactual communication, and
territoriality. In the following chapter I intend to discuss more in details about one
type of nonverbal communication – proxemics.

12

1.3 . Areas of Proxemics
Edward Hall (1914-2009) was an American anthropologist who developed
the concepts of Proxemics. He made a great number of researches, intercultural
studies and observations about how people divide their personal distance, how it is
affected by cultures and what is the difference between personal space and territory.
Proxemics is labeled as one type of culturally determined behaviors in the field of
nonverbal communication. According to Hall, spatial communication is important
in conversation. Proxemics, the study of how communication is influenced by space
and distance, is historically related to how people use, manipulate, and identify their
space.
The term given to the study of our use of personal space is proxemics.
Proxemics is a word Hall coined in reference to “interrelated theories of man’s use
of space as a specialized elaboration of culture” (Hall, 1966). In “The Hidden
Dimension”, Hall established theories about spatial relationships. Distances people
establish between themselves and their fellow humans communicate meaning. In
other words, meaning attached to certain spatial behaviors is culturally determined.
Hall (1959) demonstrated that cultures differ substantially in their use of personal
space. How much space we each want between ourselves and others depends on our
cultural learning, our upbringing in our families, the specific situation, and our
relationship with the people to whom we are talking. For instance, in the United
States people assume that when one-person places himself close to another person,
he is doing so because he knows that person well. Americans are not likely to stand,
voluntarily, as close as twelve inches from a stranger. Therefore, physical distance
and partitions of space serve to establish a setting for communication. It would be
expected that spatial relationships, a variable in the communication setting, would
affect communication between people.
Hall (1963) defined proxemics “the study of how man unconsciously
structures micro-space – the distance between men in the conduct of daily

13


transactions, the organization of space in his houses and buildings, and ultimately
the layout of his towns.”
Hall (1964) also stated that proxemics was the study of the ways in which
man gains knowledge of the content of other men’s minds through judgments of
behavior patterns associated with varying degrees of [spatial] proximity to them.
In reference to the model of communication, personal space is defined as a
form of nonverbal communication which describes the boundaries of intimacy
between people (Hall 1966, Porteous 1977). Hall (1959) also defined four
dimensions of personal space (among Americans), based on the level of intimacy
between the communicators. Intimate distance corresponds to a high level of
intimacy between two persons. Intimate distance covers the distance that extends
from one communicator to around 46 cm/ 18 inches. This spatial zone is normally
reserved for those people with close relationships – for example, close friends,
romantic partners, and family members.
Personal distance is the distance between two persons who know each other
with a relative intimacy, such as friends, brothers, and sisters. The personal distance
varies between 46 cm (18 inches) and 122 cm (4 feet). This is the space most people
use during conversations. This distance allows the speaker to feel some protection
from other who might wish to touch. The range in this distance type allows those at
the closest range to pick up physical nuances (such as dry skin, acne, body odor or
breath odor). However, we are still able to conduct business with those at the far
range – which Hall (1959) calls “arm’s length” – but any signs of nonverbal
closeness are erased. Examples of relationships accustomed to personal distance are
casual friends or business colleagues. (West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)
Social distance corresponds to a more superficial and impersonal form of
communication or business relation; for example, the interactions among coworkers with a boss or at a social gathering or public event. This is the spatial zone

which reserved for professional or formal interpersonal encounters. Some office
environments are arranged specially for social distance rather than intimate distance

14


or personal distance. The range is from 122cm to 210cm and can extend to 210 cm
to 370 cm in more formal settings.
Finally, public distance is when there is no intimacy between the speakers,
and the space varies from 370 cm to 760 cm or more in a formal setting. This spatial
zone allows listeners to scan the entire person while he or she is speaking. The
classroom environment exemplifies public distance. Most classrooms are arranged
with a teacher in the front and rows of desks or tables facing the teacher. This setup
can vary, but many classrooms are arranged with students more than twelve feet
from their teacher. Public distance is also used in large settings, such as when we
listen to speakers, watch musicals, or attend television show tapings.
Hall (1966) believed that proxemics is “the study of man’s transactions as he
perceives and uses intimate, personal, social and public space in various settings”.
In other words, proxemics investigates how people use and organize the space they
share with others to communicate, typically outside conscious awareness, socially
relevant information such as personality traits (e.g., dominant people tend to use
more space than others in shared environments), attitudes (e.g., people that discuss
tend to sit or stand in front of the other, whereas people that collaborate tend to seat
side-by-side), etc. These distances are proved to be very culturally specific. For
some cultures, these distance zones may be compressed, for others they may be
expanded. When involved in cross-cultural communication, understanding these
variations of distance zones is essential to maintain effective communication. The
description of each concentric space can be summarized as below:
Intimate

Personal

Casual/

15

Distance
Touching to

Description
Private situations with people who are

18 inches

emotionally close. If others invade this

18 inches to

space, we feel threatened.
The lower end is handshake distance –

4 feet

the distance most couples stand in

4 feet to 12

public.
The lower end is the distance

Voice
Whisper

Soft voice

Full voice


Social

feet

salespeople and customers and
between people who work together in

Public

business.
Greater than Situations such as teaching in a

Loud voice

12 feet
classroom or delivering a speech.
Hall (1959) also suggested that in most co-cultures in the United States,
people communicate with each other at a specific distance, depending on the nature
of the conversation. Starting with the closest contact and the least amount of
personal space, and moving to the greatest distance between communicators, the
four categories of personal space are intimate distance, personal distance, social
distance and public distance. (See Figure. below)

Figure 1. Edward T. Hall’s four types of personal distance. (West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)

Hall (1959) divided the personal distance people keep from other into 4 main
zones. These zones serve as “reaction bubbles” – when entering in a specific zone,
some certain psychological and physical reactions in that person will be
automatically activated.
Proxemics can be divided into categories: space and distance. Proxemics
reveals that people handle space differently, depending on the type of culture they
come from. If personal space is violated, people from individualistic cultures may

16


react actively while people from collectivist culture may adopt a passive stance. It is
crucial for informants to understand more about how physical space is dealt with in
different cultures if they do not want to experience feelings of exclusion for
instance.
Knowing some proxemics cues is important to increase people’s
comprehension and expression. Personal space is the space surrounding a person
into which intruders may not come. This space is different according to the culture.
Personal space is the distance we put between ourselves and others. We carry
informal personal space from one encounter to another; think of this personal space
as a sort of invisible bubble that encircles us wherever we go. Our personal space
provides some insight into ourselves and how we feel about other people. For
instance, some research shows that happily married couples stand closer to one
another (11.4 inches) than those who are martially distressed (14.8 inches) (Crane,
1987, cited in West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)
Distance proxemics, or also called conversational distance can be considered
a culturally sensitive communication symbol. The distances between people

reserved for categories of acquaintance will vary depends on the cultural
interpretation of the distance. As I mentioned, Hall distinguishes four types of
informal distances: public (with unknown people), social (professional and
unofficial social occasions), personal (between friends) and intimate distance (with
close relationships). Once again, each culture has its body boundaries and the space
bubble or body language can be misinterpreted. Axtell (1997, p.40) classifies
cultures as follow: “high contact” are touching cultures (Middle East, Latin
American, …), “moderate contact” are middle ground (France, China, Ireland, …)
and “low contact” do not touch or stand to close to the others (Japan, US, England,
…). Therefore, conversational dyads need to be sensitive to these differences since a
body gesture can appear personal or intimate depending on the culture of the
person.

17


A theoretical model can help us understand the differences in distance
between people. The expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1978) states that we
expect people to maintain a certain distance in their conversations with us. If a
person violates our expectations (if, for instance, a work colleague stands in our
intimate space while talking with us), our response to the violation will be based on
how much we like that person. That is, if we like a person, we’re probably going to
allow a distance violation. We may even reciprocate that conversational distance. If
we dislike the person, we will likely be irritated by the violation and perhaps move
away from the person. According to this theory, the degree to which we like
someone can be based on factors that include our assessment of their credibility and
physical attractiveness. Personal space violations, therefore, have consequences on
our interactions.

1.4. Factors affecting conversational distances

It has been demonstrated that the distance depends on the age of the animals,
their body size, sex and number of other factors (Hediger 1950, Tinbergen 1953,
Hall 1966). Some authors preferred to use the term interpersonal distance, due to
the fact that this expression clearly indicates that the interaction between individuals
is involved (Aiello 1987, Bell et al. 2001). There must be some variables which
have our use of space such as age, gender, culture, social status, personality, states
of mood, marital status and living areas.

1.4.1. Culture
Cultural background is one of the most influential factors in nonverbal
communication. The main idea is that people from different cultures have different
concepts of what constitutes one’s “personal space” and that the way we use the
space around us is generally shaped by our culture. In other words, interpretations
of personal space vary from cultures to cultures. Therefore, it is crucial to
understand the influence of culture diversity on nonverbal communication in order
to reduce friction and confusion during the process of cross-cultural
communication.
18


Cultures can be divided into three types: high-contact culture, moderatecontact culture and low-contact culture. In high-contact culture, people prefer
higher sensory exposure while interacting; that means, people usually keep small
distances among themselves.
The culture people grew up has a tremendous effect on who people are as
individuals, whether they like it or not. One of the direct cultural influences is on
the size of the individual personal proxemics distance.
“Distant” cultures tend to keep more personal space and use less touching
than other “warm” cultures. By contrast, Asian cultures characterized by more
accommodating accepting attitude when it comes to personal distance and the
theory states that it’s due to more crowded living conditions.

Other cultures including American’s are considered to be “warmer” by
nature-touch and close proximity are more welcome and socially accepted.
Obviously, generalizing this information is a big mistake. The researcher doesn’t
intend to conclude that all Europeans are distant and Asians like to crowd, it’s
merely an overall cultural code.
For the purposes of understanding how different people communicate nonverbally, Edward Hall separated cultures into two basic categories: contact and noncontact. In contact cultures, physical touching and intimate space between
acquaintances is permitted and even necessary for establishing interpersonal
relationships. For non-contact cultures, touching and personal space is reserved for
only the most intimate acquaintances. Examples include the U.S., Norway, Japan,
and most Southeast Asian cultures.

1.4.2. Gender
Women tend to be more sociable than men: they get social cues better, they
are more emotionally expressive and they are even generally better than men when
it comes to emotional communication. It is quite natural that women will feel more
comfortable being to each other than men. One observational study of
conversational distance found that pairs of woman stood closer than pairs of men.

19


By contrast, men are more territorial and aggressive by nature and will keep
more distance from other men, but when it comes to women, men usually prefer to
get a little closer. Willis (1966) stated that women are approached more closely by
both two genders, men and women. Burgoon (1991) found that photographed males
were seen as more dominant at close than at norm or far distances; for females,
there were no differences across distances. Thus we might expect some gender
differences associated with proxemic relational messages.
What is more, distance between the dyads of the same sex if smaller than
between those of the opposite sex. Vrugt and Ketstra (1984) stated that “in

interaction between strangers, the interpersonal distance between women is smaller
than between men and women.”
Research in sex differences in personal space indicates that the bubbles
surrounding women are smaller than are those surrounding men. For example, a
study using unobtrusive observation of people in a public setting found that female
pairs stood closer to each other than did male pairs. In addition, this study found
that male-female pairs stood closest of all. Similarly, another study found that male
and female pairs who were unacquainted differed in their interpersonal distance.
Specifically, it was noted that female pairs sat closer to each other than male pairs
in a waiting room situation. Unequal space zones were also noted by Willis who
found, in studying the initial speaking distance set by an approaching person, that
women were approached more closely than were men by both men and women.

1.4.3. Social Status – Power Distance
Power distance refers to the degree of hierarchy and the way organigrams are
set-up. Power distance affects verbal and nonverbal communication. People from
individualistic cultures tend to have a small power distance whereas people from
collectivist cultures have a bigger one. Depending of the culture, power is
distributed differently. According to Altman & Vinsel (1977), dominant individuals
command and were afforded more personal space than submissive or low status
individuals.

20


Social status produces a huge effect on the personal distance and demand.
Accordingly, the higher the status, the more space communicators consider to be
theirs. It is believed that distance used between co-workers is distinctive to that
between boss and worker, superior and inferior. Hence, the first-class seats are
bigger and have more space per individual. When it comes to dominant-subordinate

relationships it means that the high-status person can invade the space of the lower
status person without too much resistance, and sometimes he is even encouraged to
do so.
Dominant individuals command and are afforded more personal space than
submissive or low status individuals (Altman & Vinsel, 1977; Burgoon, 1987), and
Burgoon et al. (1984) found that among five immedacy cues, proximity was the
biggest predictor of dominance interpretations. Because dominant people are
allowed to violate conversational distance norms, both close and far distances are
associated with more dominance that are intermediate distanes (Burgoon, 1991;
Burgoon et al., 1984; Burgoon & Hale, 1988).

1.4.4. Age
In general, children tend to stand closer to the subject. That is, they are much
more open in nature than adults, which can be explained by the fact that they lack
some of the “social boundaries”. Therefore, if a kid really like someone, he will
even hug that person during the conversation. Yet, at teenager or over, people begin
having some awareness of gender difference, the distance especially in intimate and
personal zone becomes further. And at old age, we are found to interact in a closer
distance, because we are assumed to receive the interaction subject’s due to our
being weak.
It is examined that children are used to closer and more intimate proxemics,
or, children are used to closer and more intimate proxemics. Children have a strong
need to be around those who they feel can protect them, and who provide for them.
Independence is a big issue in the study of all proxemics, and children are the
perfect example of how much of a non-factor proxemics are with no sense of

21


independence. However, as children grow older their need to be close to parents

decreases and their want to be near playmates or friends decreases. (Burgess, 1982)
It is also studied that when people age into adulthood, they develop social
skills to understand and manage their own proximity. As people grow older they
desire independence and social control which greatly affect their proxemics.

1.4.5. Personality
According to T. Davies (1976:74), the image of one person was also affected
by the levels if extroversion or introversion of his or her personality. When it comes
to personality, extrovert people naturally tend to keep less distance than introverts.
That is, extroverts will get along fine with other extroverts and probably annoy the
introverts. In short, extroverts have a strong outer reality whereas introverts have a
strong inner reality. Extroverts may well avoid self-analysis and feel uncomfortable
spending a great deal of time on their own, they tend to stand closer to the partners.
Meanwhile, introverts may well avoid the intimate behaviors, thus they tend to
stand far from the partners. However, people do not fall neatly into one category or
the other. A person who is extrovert by nature may also have an introverted side at
certain time and in certain situations, and vice versa. Most people are mixture,
though one tendency usually dominates.

1.4.6. Marital Status
Marital relationship has some effects on personal space. Berman and Lief
(cited in Hill, R. D., 1982), suggested that two “critical dimensions” of the marital
relationship are level of intimacy and degree of inclusion or exclusion of others, and
that both have potential impact on personal space needs. Since a high degree of
intimacy is expected to occur within the marital relationship and preferable
interpersonal distance is generally considered socially appropriate, it is likely that
personal space needs among married couples would be relatively small.
Furthermore, since sexual interaction and between a married person and an
opposite-sexed non-spouse is generally considered inappropriate in both American
and Vietnamese cultures, it is likely that personal space needs between a married

22


person and an opposite-sexed non-spouse would be relatively large, even though the
combination would represent a mixed-sex dyad. Specifically, it was hypothesized
that personal space needs would be smallest between married person to each other,
somewhat greater between a married person and same-sexed stranger, and greatest
between a married communicator and an opposite-sexed stranger.

1.4.7. Living Area
According to Allan Pease (1993:34), the amount of interpersonal distance
required by an individual was related to the population density of the area in which
that person was born and brought up. Those who were brought up in sparsely
polluted areas (rural areas) require more space than those raised in densely polluted
capital cities (urban areas).
There’s also a difference between country living culture and the urban city
lifestyle – country people are used to live in a vast and mildly populated areas while
city dwellers are more used to crowding. This meant that city dwellers will usually
have a smaller distance than country people due to this habit of density.

1.4.8. Relationship
Relationship is one of the very important factors influencing conversational
distances. The more intimate the communicators are, the smaller the physical
distance will tend to be when communicating. Public space maintained between
audiences and speakers. Social space is used for conversations among acquaintances
such as friends and colleagues. Friends, family members and relatives come to the
personal space. And intimate space is ruled by lovers, couples, spouses, sometimes
by close friends and family members. In other words, relationship has some effect
on distinction on conversational distances.
In Manusov and Patterson’s text, they pointed out the fact that people are

more likely to sit closer to a romantic partner than their own friends (Manusov and
Patterson, 265). One term in particular that is crucial in understanding the
proxemics in relationships is the term interpersonal distance. This term is defined as
the physical space between two people. The closeness or distance between two
23


people can directly reflect the relationship between the two people. If two people
are very close then their interpersonal distance will be an indicator of this because
they will close the space between themselves. But, if two people are very distance
then it can almost always be assumed that they are not close in their relationship.
Proxemics are very important in a relationship because research has shown that
being close to one another can have a positive effect on the relationship. In romantic
relationships, one can also observe differences between couples that have recently
come together versus couples that have been dating for a substantially longer
amount of time. When relationships begin to break down and a couple is headed for
a break up, the proxemics of the relationship changes dramatically.

1.4.9. Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures:
The style of nonverbal communication commonly employed by a specific
ethnic group depends on several dimensions of cultural variability. In the broadest
sense, cultural variability can be viewed in terms of two extremes: individualism
and collectivism (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002).
Dimensions of cultural variability and barriers have to be considered since
individualist and collective cultures shape people differently. Individualism is “the
opposite of collectivism; together they form on of the dimensions of national
cultures. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are
loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate
family only.” Collectivism “stands for a society in which people from birth onwards
are integrated into strong cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime

continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1994,
p.126). However, proximity does not obey global rules. Territoriality, Contact,
interpersonal distance, touch, sensory involvement can differ from one culture to
another one. It has been theorized that the relations with other people depends on
the culture (individualistic or collectivist), the power distance (hierarchical or
democratic), they are neutral or convey emotion. High-context communication often

24


corresponds with communitarian settings, while low-context communication often
occurs in individualist settings.
Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.235) explain that “close” and “far” mean
different things depending of the culture: a high-contact culture will consider more
closeness as something positive. Mehrabian (1971) defines “immediacy” as “the
evaluative dimension of meaning, and it involves judgements of close-far, positivenegative, and good-bad” all these things are used to indicate psychological
closeness to others. Immediacy is associated with: close conversational distance,
direct body orientation, forward lean, direct gaze, positive facial rein-forcers,
postural openness, frequent gesturing and touch.
Individualism value privacy; collectivists do not value it as much and often
find being alone frightening. Related to these points are differences in the way
personal space is used. Collectivists do not respect the personal space of other as
much as do individualists. (Triandis, 1995)
Asian groups including Vietnamese have commonly been identified as
collectivistic. They have interdependent self-construal, which lead them to act in
certain ways based on their relation with their communication partner in a specific
context (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). That is, they expect to maintain harmony in
their high context communication. According to Lewis (1999), interpretations of
personal space vary from culture to culture. People in South American countries,
such as Brazil, require little personal space in an interaction. Arabs, Hungarians, and

African similarly reduce conversational distance. In general, people from
individualistic cultures (for examples, United States, Germany, Canada) require
more space than do those from collectivistic cultures. The personal space
requirements of people from collectivistic cultures can be partially explained by the
fact that people from those cultures tends to work, sleep and have fun in close
proximity to one another (Andersen, 2003).
Context, as one of the influential dimensions of culture differences, was
presents by Hall (1976). He defined context as the information that surrounded an

25