|
1.6.3 - Communication Styles

In addition to the nonverbal communication
cues discussed, how we say things is influenced by culture. This is referred
to as "communication style." While there are many nuances in
communication styles there are essentially five contrasts in the way we approach topics of conversation
-not
the content but the way in which we debate, converse, ask questions, and organize
verbal communication- that are challenging in interactions between people
from different cultures. This can be one of the most tricky aspects of communication
because we tend to react to different “styles” immediately and emotionally. But when we think back on an exchange which has not gone well and analyze just the words spoken, we often cannot figure out why we are
so annoyed and/or frustrated. Knowing something about communication styles
will be very helpful to you in figuring out why “how” something is said is
just as important as “what” was actually verbalized because we tend to react
to style unconsciously and instinctively.

|
Before we discuss communication styles, answer the following
questions just to get a sense of the verbal style that is comfortable
for you. |
See discussion of answers.
| Memories.. |
 |
Communication styles vary enormously across the globe. However, like so many of the contrast sets we have examined so far, most countries tend to prefer one or the other of the five we
will examine here:
Linear
versus Circular = straight line discussion versus a more circular
approach
Direct
versus
Indirect =
meaning conveyed by words versus through suggestion
Detached
versus
Attached = objective
presentation versus expressive style
Intellectual
Engagement
versus
Relational Engagement = Discussion is about the task versus
discussion about the task and the person
Concrete
versus
Abstract =
example driven versus theory driven discussion
|
Why
Should You Pay Attention to These Differences?
In this list,
US-Americans tend to be on the left side, that is, to prefer linear,
direct, detached, intellectually engaged, and concrete styles of
communication. In contrast, many African, Asian, and Pacific groups prefer
more circular, indirect, attached, relationally engaged styles. Europeans
can have a combination, for example, in Spain (and much of Latin America),
people prefer a strong, relational engagement, and attached style of
communication while also being direct, linear, and abstract in their
approach. The French style is often abstract, intellectually engaged, and
detached. Many permutations
of these five styles are found worldwide.
The point here is that
anyone about to enter an international study abroad program is likely to
encounter styles of communication which are unfamiliar and, perhaps,
disconcerting. If a new acquaintance overseas begins a long, meandering
story in response to a question you posed, it is far better to say, "He
or she certainly has a circular style!" than, "What is the matter with
them, can’t they get to the point?" Learning to deal with a new set of communication styles is part of
the challenge of studying abroad. If you learn to do it well, it will add
to your ability to effectively communicate with a wider range of people
than you can now and significantly increase your intercultural skills. A
fuller explanation of these styles follows below.
|
CONTRASTING
COMMUNICATION STYLES
|

|
|
Linear: Discussion is
conducted in a straight line, almost like an outline, with
the connections among the points stated as you move towards an end point, which is
stated explicitly. There is a low reliance on context and a strong
reliance on words. (Cut to the chase, where the rubber meets the road!) |
Circular
(contextual) Discussion
is conducted in a circular manner, telling stories and developing a
context around the main point, which is often unstated because the
listener will get the point after I give them all the information. There
is a high reliance on context. (Once you have the relevant information,
you’ll know what I mean.) |
|
|

|
|
Direct: Meaning
is conveyed through explicit statements made directly to the people
involved with little reliance on contextual factors such as situation and
timing. (What you see is what you get! Tell it like it is!) |
Indirect: Meaning is
conveyed by suggestion, implication, nonverbal behavior, and other
contextual cues; for instance, statements intended for one person may be
made within earshot of a different person. It is possible that messages
will be sent through a third-party intermediary. Mostly, however, this
style allows one to avoid confronting another person or cause them to lose
face. (What you get is what you manage to see!) |
|
|

|
|
Attached: Issues are
discussed with feeling and emotion, conveying the speaker's personal
stake in the issue and the outcome. This shows the passion someone feels
in a situation or for an issue. (If it’s important, it’s worth getting
worked up over!) |
Detached: Issues are
discussed with calmness and objectivity, conveying the speaker's ability
to weigh all the factors impersonally. It is important to be objective.
(If it’s important, it shouldn’t be tainted by personal bias!) |
|
|

|
|
Intellectual
Engagement: Any
disagreement with ideas is stated directly, with the assumption that only
the idea, not the relationship, is being attacked. This is an intellectual
style found in some European countries. (We’re just arguing-don’t
take it personally!) |
Relational
Engagement: Relational issues and problems are confronted directly,
while intellectual disagreement is handled more subtly and indirectly. If
you have a problem with someone, it helps to talk things over, albeit in
an non-confrontational manner. In an intellectual debate, it is important
to be tread softly. (Be authentic about your feelings and respectful of
other's ideas.) |
|
|

|
|
Concrete: Issues are best understood
through stories, metaphors, allegories, and examples, with emphasis on
the specific rather than the general. (What’s an example?)
|
Abstract: Issues are best understood through theories, principles, and data,
with emphasis on the general rather than the specific. (What’s the
principle?)
|
|
|