The people usually
seem to use some ways in do the communication. The communication itself according
to Gudykunst and Bella is one of processes of social interaction that
encompasses two interrelated aspects social life; the distinctive ways of
communication and communication in representing its cultural, communal and
function (2002, p.51). The aspect of presenting cultural, the people will be
examine their culture by their communication way. And one of way communication
is verbal communication. From the enlightenment above, here will be discussed
the verbal communication as one of way the people speak in their community.
This topic will include the points or features that support and correlated with
verbal communication.
The first issue
is the culture and its effect to communication. Adelman and Levine have already
said that culture affects communication style (1993, p. 65). This point may
influence other misunderstanding for people to assess the conversation among
people from that comes from different culture. For example, when Italian does
the conversation with his friend, American from the other culture, then he
picks one topic about something that she or he likes –but his friend does not
like-, it would be like an unbalanced conversation. In other words, we can
assess that conversation might be irrelevant each others, might be Italian can
enjoy it, but not for American. Even for American, that topic becomes heated
conversation. In it cases, the American will appear passive and does not
involved of its conversation, while Italian becomes angry to know that American
refused that topic.
The second issue
is about the conversational involvement. In conversational involvement
actually, there are two categories or styles; high involvement and high
consideration style. Larry, Richard, and Edwin use the term of high
involvement for the speakers that generally prefer to talk in personal topic,
shift topic abruptly, simultaneous talk or use overlap talk. While high
consideration is used for the speakers that feel uncomfortable to speak the
personal topic especially in the first meeting to someone, do not shift the
topic, use less overlap, and also tend to feel comfort to keep silence for
amount moment (2009, p.240). Adelman and Levine have mentioned in their book
that those styles comprise some characteristics each others. For high
involvement, they characterize these features; talk more, interrupt more,
expect to be interrupted, talk more loudly at times, talk more quickly. And
high consideration style tends to be different with high involvement. High
consideration has characteristics speak one at a time, use polite listening
sound, refrain for interrupting, give much positive responses to their partners
in conversation (1993, p.66). As we know, in the realty around us, so
many people from different cultures are alive together. In the process of
sociality they communicate each other, when the Sundanese and Bataknese meets
then converse each other, Sundanese will tend to be high consideration rather
than Bataknese. Adelman and Levin comprise Russian, Italian, Greek, Spanish,
South American, Arab, and African as high involvement style. While, Asian and
American’s mainstream conversation generally as high considerateness style (1993,
p.67). Those styles affect the incorrect judgment of characters. The people who
speak high involvement seem to be pushy and domineering. While the people who
speak in high consideration seems like one who doesn’t interesting with the
topic or passive one.
The
third issue is about the directness and indirectness of people in the
communication. American mainstream itself, ideally adopts the direct speech in
speaking rather than indirect speech. American tends to utter their desire in
direct expression. But, that condition is different with Japan. In Japan, the
people try to use another words to say “No”, or doing speech indirectly to
avoid the rudeness in conversation. The differences of Male-Female American in
directness are in two aspects. Adelman and Levine mentioned that female of
American tend to be less direct in making request, expressing, criticism, and
offering opinion. But, for expressing their feeling, the women tend to be more
directness rather than male (1993, p.69). The effect of cross-cultural
implication is an adjustment of someone when they speak with different culture
and style in speech. For example, when American goes abroad to learn in
countries that adopt indirectness speech (Asian), they might need to modify
their communication style.
The fourth issue
is about the structure of conversation. Some foreigners have observed when
Americans hold a conversation just like a Ping-Pong game in which they create a
session when the people talk to much, their partner might become impatient an
feels that their partner monopolizing the conversation, and if their partner
have not good question or response, the conversation will be stopped (1993,
p.70). And the people whose formal conversation each others which has been drawn
as bowling game. Each of them speaks politely and waits to response their
partner. Again, as mentioned in the previous topic, the ethnocentric judgments
take the part in this topic. The people in their conversation can not assume
their communicating way is universal. We should be consider these points; the
people speak reflect their cultural style, the success of cross-cultural
relationship is related to the ability to understand other culture that
influence communication style, sometime the people assess others’ way seem to
be mysterious each other, and the talking about the cultural diversities in
communication style is valuable before have the serious misunderstanding (1993,
p.73-74).
From those reasons
above, the diversity of style in communication from different cultures is one
of the certainly exist. The people should understand the differences of the way
people speak before misunderstanding appears after error judging to other’s
communication style.
References
Books
Gudykunst, B. William and Bella Mody. 2002. Handbook of
International and Intercultural Communication. 2th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publ.
Levine, R. Deena and Mara.B.Adelman. 1993. Beyond
Language: Cross Cultural Communication. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Regence.
Samovar, Larry A. Richard E Porter, and Edwin R
McDaniel. 2009. Intercultural Communication : A Reader. 12th ed.
South Melbourne,
Australia ; Boston, Mass. : Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
