Condiciones que deben de cumplir las posibles soluciones

Culture shapes communication. Edward Hall (1976) distinguished between high- and low-context communication. In high-context communication, social roles are prioritised over verbal content and characteristics, along with non-verbal aspects of the interaction. The physical environment and social positions take precedent when trying to understand a speaker’s message, above and beyond the message content. In fact, little is made explicit among high-context populations to avoid over-informing the listener and the verbal message is abbreviated. Moreover, the listener is expected to be aware of the context in which they receive the message, such that both the speaker and the listener have responsibility for correctly decoding a message. Hesitation characterises high-context messages (Okabe, 1983) and camouflage of the speaker’s full opinion, giving greater

priority to harmony with the listener (Gudykunst, Matsumoto, Ting-Toomey, Nishida, Kim & Heyman, 1996). In contrast, low-context communication involves thorough verbal expression of one’s meaning (Hall, 1976). Verbal content takes precedent over non-verbal characteristics esteemed in high-context settings.

Gudykunst and colleagues demonstrated that collectivists are likely to employ high-context communication and individualists low-context communication (Gudykunst et al., 1996). Specifically, Gudykunst showed that East Asians (i.e., Japanese and Korean) were significantly more likely to score highly on collectivism and high-context

communication than Westerners. Correspondingly, Western participants (i.e., American and Australian) scored lower on collectivism and showed greater low-context

communication. Likewise, using different measures of high-/low-context communication, Kim, Pan and Park (1998) found East Asians reported greater high-context tendencies and American participants showed a greater low-context inclination (cf. Richardson & Smith, 2007). More support still for high-context communication among East Asians is in their communicative apprehension compared with North American counterparts (Morishima, 1981; Zhang, Butler & Pryor, 1996). In keeping with their high-context patterns, East Asian participants found it harder to ignore vocal tones—a non-verbal feature—during a Stroop Effect task, whereas Western participants, being low-context, found it harder to ignore verbalised content (Ishii, Reyes & Kitayama, 2003). East Asians are also well documented to have a strong preference for disagreeing indirectly, whereas their Western counterparts do not have a stronger preference for direct or indirect disagreements (Afifi & Lee, 2000; Goldenberg, Ginexi, Sigelman & Poppen, 1999). The use of silence has also revealed cultural differences, as Americans use smaller quantities of silence than their Japanese counterparts. However, when they do use silence, American silence is

Since culture has been related to high- or low-context communication style, I likewise expected expert teachers to differ in rates high-/low-context communication according to their cultural context.

The same non-verbal behaviour, or gesture, can be diverse in cultural meaning (Archer, 1997). “Just as there is no reason to expect an English word to be recognized internationally, there is no reason to expect an American hand gesture to be recognized” (p. 80). For example, the thumbs-up signals good wishes in the West, but is obscene and hostile in the Middle East. Archer goes on to list ten further examples of orthogonal meanings for the same culturally emblematic hand movements. Even at a broad and superficial level, then, the same non-verbal behaviours send fundamentally different signals to different cultural audiences.

Thus, gestures differ across cultures in meanings, spatial cognition, linguistics, and pragmatics (Kita, 2009). Relevant to this thesis are differences in the meaning and

pragmatics carried by gestures across cultures. In terms of meaning differences, gestures function as culture-specific ‘emblems’ (cf. Ekman & Friesen, 1969). That is, the same hand movement around the globe carries culturally defined messages. By forming a ring with the thumb and index finger, one is signalling ‘OK’ in most of Europe, but referring to a more intimate (perhaps obscene) body part in Mediterranean areas such as Greece and Turkey (Morris, Collett, Marsh & O’Shaughnessy, 1979). Kita cites, as well, the cultural diversity in the pointing gesture. Contrasting meanings are found within some cultures, such as among Napolini Italians, depending on the angle of the finger-pointing gesture (Kendon & Versante, 2003). Within other cultures, such as East Africa and Central Australia, lip-pointing is also used differentially for different messages and is reserved for transmitting more private messages in a public space (Enfield, 2001).

Cultures also differ in gesture pragmatics—that is, the communication system of gesture (Kita, 2009). Kita gives politeness as an example for the way cultures differ in their interpretation of shared gestures. The same gesture, in one culture, represents the utmost courtesy and, in another culture, the greatest offence. Gestural taboos are salient illustrations. For instance, the left hand is perfectly acceptable and inoffensive in most cultural settings, but is regarded unhygienic in South Asian and West African regions (e.g., Meyer-Rochow, 2009). Giving, receiving, eating and drinking are therefore constrained from the left hand. Kita highlights the compensation that results, with the right hand and the rest of the body. Meanwhile, there is a “respect position” (p. 158) for the left hand: hidden behind one’s back, away from the addressee. When the left hand becomes necessary during communication, its movement is minimised, so that the most movement involves a flick of the wrist.