Non-verbal communication as a factor of adaptation in intercultural space

author: Maya Trynyak

Urgency of the research. Non-verbal communication as a culturally determined component specific to the communicative space of each linguistic culture reveals the peculiarities of national linguistic consciousness. The study of this component makes it possible to learn about nationally specific components in communication, to form the communicative behaviour necessary for effective adaptation in the intercultural space.

Target setting. In connection with the actualization of the study of paralinguistic (non-verbal) factors of communication in the second half of the twentieth century, the problem of insufficient research on the national specificity of communication, speech and behavioral stereotypes from the standpoint of the newly formed scientific fields: psycholinguistics, intercultural communication, linguistic and cultural studies, and philosophy of education has become particularly acute. As for the latter, the demand for such research is due to the need to teach the younger generation the norms of adequate communicative behavior in a globalized world with virtually unlimited potential for international contacts and, at the same time, the lack of educational materials that would reflect examples of the application of cultural, situational and individual norms of communication.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. The research problem has led to the choice for analysis of the works of such foreign researchers as: E. Hall, R. Birdwistell, H. Brinkman, M. Remland, M. Juice, P. Ekman, etc.

The research objective. The primary task of the study is to conceptualise the phenomenon of non-verbal communication, in particular, in the aspect of spatial orientation (proxemics), as an adaptation factor in the process of intercultural interaction.

The statement of basic materials. Intercultural communication, as a scientific and applied discipline, deals with the following questions: how to understand the alien (other), communicate adequately with the Other, correctly interpret authentic cultural signs, and adapt to the conditions of interaction with representatives of other cultures? The ability to adapt is one of the components of an individual's intercultural competence. It is understood as a set of social skills and abilities that help a person successfully communicate with partners from other cultures, both at the domestic and professional levels. According to E. Hall's communicative model of culture, the ability to adapt in intercultural space is mediated by the main parameters or primary information systems, among which the researcher pays considerable attention to the category of space. According to Hall's concept, at least four aspects of people's use of space can be identified, and this use varies depending on the culture: personal space; spatial orientation; interpersonal distance; and space organisation. In works related to this issue, empirical data have identified certain factors that facilitate or complicate the process of adaptation. The following character traits facilitate adaptation to new cultural conditions: tolerance to ambiguous intercultural situations, openness, extroversion, empathy, curiosity, self-criticism. Character traits that have a negative impact on adaptation are rigidity of character, lack of independence, and obedience to authority. Research results show that the easier and more successful a person goes through the acculturation stage, the better their achievements in the professional sphere.

Conclusions. The ability to interact effectively with representatives of other cultures is a crucial condition for the success of a modern person's professional and social activities. And while the codification system in such communication is quite transparent at the verbal level and requires only knowledge of a particular language, the perception and understanding of non-verbal signals is a complex and multidirectional process. It is the ability to correctly interpret the paralinguistic signals of others that determines the outcome of communication in the case of a “meeting of cultures”. By improving education and intensifying research in this area, it is possible to achieve mutual understanding between peoples in the context of an open global cultural and educational space.

Keywords: nonverbal communication, proxemics, adaptation, intercultural space

References:

  1. Argyle, M 1988, Bodily communication, 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 345 р.
  2. Bausinger, H 1985, ‘Alltag im Landeskundeunterrichtʼ, Deutsch lernen, 3, 3–14.
  3. Birdwhistell, RL 1982, ‘Introduction to Kinesicsʼ, Universiti of Louisville Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 118 p.
  4. Baudrillard, J & L’Yvonnet, F 2001, D’un fragment l’autre, Paris, Le Livre de Poche, 157 p.
  5. Cui, G & Awa, NE 1992, ‘Measuring Intercultural Effectiveness: An Integrative Approachʼ, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, р 311–328.
  6. Ekman, Р & Friesen, WV 1969, ‘The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage and Codingʼ, Semiotica. Vol 1, № 1, рp. 49-98.
  7. Gudykunst, WB 1985, ‘A Model of Uncertainty Reduction in Intercultural Contexts’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, рp. 401- 413.
  8. Gudykunst, WB 1994, ‘Attributing Meaning for Strangers Behaviorʼ, In: Bridging Differences. Effective Intergroup Communication Thousand Oaks u.a, pp. 110 – 13.
  9. Gudykunst, WB 1985, ‘Intercultural Communication: Current Status and Proposed Directionsʼ, Dervin, B.; Voigt, M.J. (Hrsg.), Progress in Communication Sciences. Norwood, NJ, р1- 46.
  10. Gumperz, J & Hymes, Dell (Hrsg.) 1972, Directions in Sociolinguistics, New York, рp.35 – 71.
  11. Hall, E 1963, ‘A system for the notation of proxemic behaviorʼ, American anthropologist, 65 (5), р. 1003–1026
  12. Hall, ET 1968, ‘Proxemicsʼ, Current Anthropology, 9, рp. 83–95.
  13. Harrigan, JA 2005, ‘Proxemics, kinesics, and gaze’, In: The New Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research (Series in Affective Science), New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Joos, M 1962, ‘The Five Clocksʼ, International Journal of American Linguistics, 28, № 2, pр. 7–62
  15. Kluckhohn, FR & Strodtbeck, FL 1961, Variations in Value Orientations, New York.
  16. Maletzke, G 1996, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
  17. Remland, MS, Jones, TS & Brinkman, H 1995, ‘Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and ageʼ, The Journal of social psychology, 135(3), pр.281–297.
  18. Rumpel, I 1988, A systematic analysis of the cultural content of introductory textbooks. Thesis presented to the Faculty of Western, Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.
  19. Vasser, M & Aru, J 2020, ‘Guidelines for immersive virtual reality in psychological research’, Current Opinion in Psychology.
  20. Zibrek, K, Niay, B, Olivier, AH, Hoyet, L, Pettre, J & McDonnell, R 2020, ‘Walk this way: Evaluating the effect of perceived gender and attractiveness of motion on proximity in virtual realityʼ, In: 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). pp. 169–170.