Topic: To investigate how different culture's usage of media and modern communication technology differs, surveyed through various modern communication theories.
Communication Theories of Interest
Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions
Edward Hall (high context vs. low context societies)
Min-Sun Kim's Self-Construal Theory
Hofstede: Culture is the independent
variable (influencing behavior)
Min-Sun Kim: Individual is the independent variable (influencing behavior)
Communication Theories of Interest:
Uses / Gratifications Theory Relational / Nonverbal Communication Uncertainty Reduction Theory Self-Disclosure / Social Penetration Theory Conversational Implicature / Cooperative Principle Speech Acts Theory Politeness / Face Theory Persuasion Pragmatics
Uses and Gratifications Theory
- we seek out media / technology that fulfills our needs
- some of these needs: entertainment (online gaming), communication
(cell phone), information (Google / online newspapers)
Relational Communication / Non-verbal Communication Theory:
CMC severely reduces / inhibits much non-verbal and contextual information
This information traditionally helps us address uncertainty, form impressions and develop relationships
There are alternative mechanisms by which we can do this in CMC: interactive, active, and passive strategies
we find ways to communicate non-verbal information
Example: in e-mail- we use CAPS, emoticons :) and 'punctuation' to convey non-verbal information to the message receiver
Non-verbal communication is very important to communication- and people find ways to use it. It increases our ability to convey a message to another person.
(C. Berger)
(followed by Michael Sunnafrank - Predicted
Outcome Value Theory)
- we are uncomfortable with uncertainty in relationships
- we are aware of this and do things to lower uncertainty in the
relationship (such as self-disclosing, to
raise intimacy)
- this is accomplished by self-monitoring ourselves
Might tie into here: Judy Burgoon and Expectancy - Violations Theory
- if people act as we expect, we don't think much about it
- if they act weird, we search for a reason to settle our anxiety about why they are acting weird
- culture is a way to settle this anxiety - offers a reasonable explanation for weird behavior
Example: Someone acting weird online
See also: Wiseman article- mention of Gudykunst and anxiety-uncertainty management theory (AUM): we try to minimize misunderstandings with those of other cultures- as misunderstandings rise, we feel uncertain about the other / situation. This causes anxiety within us, provoking us to reduce the uncertainty and increase our mindfulness. We reduce uncertainty using strategies like asking questions, self disclosing.
Self-Disclosure Theory / Social Penetration Theory:
(Altman & Taylor)
- ways to increase intimacy in a relationship
- you make yourself vulnerable by disclosing information, which in turn
obligates the other person to reciprocate and give up / reveal information (a
vulnerability) about themselves (called the norm of reciprocity)
- this process (social exhange of disclosing) can be very rewarding or very
costly
This theory ties well to Uncertainty Reduction Theory - it is a method for reducing Uncertainty and Anxiety Managment (AUM / Gudykunst)
Theory of Conversational Implicature / Cooperative Principle:
Paul Grice - Studies in the Ways of
Words
When we communicate we assume cooperativeness (Cooperative Principle)
We follow the maxims of: quantity, quality, relevance, manner
A good source on Grice: http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/bibliog/grice89.htm#cProlegomena
Conversational
Implicature (summarized from Dr. Aune's
PPT)
We follow Grice's four maxims above when communicating.
In line with pragmatics, we always mean more than we say, and use conversational implicatures for our listeners to deduce extra meaning from what we say
Information Manipulation Theory (McCormack) deals with overt deception techniques (violating Grice's maxims)
Dr. Aune's article - Communicative Responsibility (summarized from Dr. Aune's PPT)
Builds off of conversational implicature
Who bears the burden of doing the majority of the communicating (to create shared meaning)?
We are careful in establishing this relationship- so we don't come off as hiding something (too low CR) or as if we're patronizing (too high CR)
John Searle: Speech Acts
When you say something, what are you trying to do?
Inform (Declarative)
Reject (Commissive)
Command
etc...
With respect to culture - we may have trouble recognizing the act. A stereotype of this: An American recognizing when a Japanese person says no
"Can you get this project done by Tuesday?" (American to Japanese)
"It might be possible, but that would be extremely difficult." (this means No!)
A good source on Speech Acts: http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/speech_acts.html
Politeness
(Brown & Levinson)
From: http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/pragmatics.htm#16
I want some beer. (bald on record: direct)
Is it OK for me to have a beer? (positive politeness: somewhat direct)
I hope it's not too forward, but would it be possible for me to have a beer? (negative politeness: somewhat indirect)
It's so hot. It makes you really thirsty. (off record: indirect)
Face Theory
- EVERYONE has
face needs!
- there are two types of face needs- positive face needs and
negative face needs
- these two types of face needs are always in combat
- positive face needs: need to look good, be likeable
- negative face needs: need to be free, have an open schedule, etc.
(Barb O'Keefe)
Search for messages that have goals - alter the receiver's mind state
Involves some infringement of other's face needs - we infringe somehow
We do the FTA (face threatening act):
1.) baldly / direct ("that dress makes you look ugly - go change")
2.) by appealing to positive face ("that other dress will bring out your eyes")
3.) by appealing to negative face (some non-threatening action - off record / semi-indirect: "sorry to bother you, but would you mind putting on that dress instead?")
4.) indirect ("I saw someone the other day with a dress like that other one you have, they looked nice in it")
These FTAs are meant to accomplish the modification of the other person's attitude, behavior, etc.
Face needs vary - as they become more important, we are likely to engage in FTAs of less severity (be more indirect)
Herbert Clark - Using Language
- study language from 2 perspectives -
language structure (syntax, semantics, pragmatics) or
language use (signals - describing as, indicating, demonstrating)
Thomas Holtgraves - Language as Social Action
Pragmatics covers many ideas in here: speech acts, conversational implicature, politeness, and other stuff that has to to with relational communication. A good summary is here: http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/pragmatics.htm
Dr. Aune's viewpoint: People never say exactly what they mean, and always mean more than they say. Pragmatics is the way that we can go about accounting for what is actually meant when people make utterances.
Questions (based on reading list / theories above):
Primary Question (Communication Theory Primary)
Secondary Question (Organizational Communication Secondary)
Uses / Gratifications Theory Relational / Nonverbal Communication Uncertainty Reduction Theory Self-Disclosure / Social Penetration Theory Conversational Implicature / Cooperative Principle Speech Acts Theory Politeness / Face Theory Persuasion Pragmatics