A COMPARATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW
2.8. CONCLUSION
signals disrespect. This may differ to a White English-speaking middle-class person who believes that failing to make eye contact with a person one is talking to, signals dishonesty or guilt. For effective communication, both participants should be aware of these nonverbal communications and their significances.
Ting–Toomey (1999: 47-110) is of the same view as Gudykunst in that she believes that the feeling of being understood, respected, and intrinsically valued, form the outcome dimension of mindful intercultural communication. She further suggests that by conveying our respect and acceptance of group–based differences, we encourage interpersonal trust, inclusion, and connection. She believes that, to be mindful intercultural communicators, we need the knowledge of both verbal and nonverbal communication in order to communicate sensitively across cultural and ethnic boundaries. Hence, she identifies cross-cultural verbal communication styles, for example, direct and indirect verbal interaction styles;
person–oriented and status–oriented; self enhanced and self effacement; and beliefs expressed in talk and silence.
Dodd (1998: 9 - 11) believes that one way of solving anxiety and uncertainty is to introduce an adaptive model of intercultural communication, Dodd argues that when two people from different cultural background interact, they indirectly form the third culture of commonality, hence he talks of adaptive model of intercultural communication, which calls for participants to suspend judgment and bias while they engage in the third culture created by the intercultural participants to explore mutual goals and concerns. He identifies three principles that are important in developing a successful interaction in the third culture, e.g. feelings or affective level (trust, comfort, safety); beliefs or cognitive level (expectations, uncertainties, misunderstanding of rules and procedures); action or behavioral level (verbal and
nonverbal communication performance, survival skills). Steyn & Motshabi (1996:
13-17) on the other hand identify influencing factors (e.g., perception, values, beliefs, attitudes) and inhibiting factors (e.g., stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism) that must be considered for effective intercultural communication.
Saville-Troike (1982: 36) mentions indirectness as a way of cultural communication. She contends that:
Indirectness may be reflected in routines for offering and refusing gifts or food, for instance, a “yes” or “no” intended to be taken literally is more direct than an initial ‘no”
intended to mean “ask me again”.
She gives examples of indirectness such as, proverbs, criticism, joking, using passive voice rather than active.
Saville–Troike (ibid) differs from other scholars in the sense that she believes that patterning occurs in all levels of communication, societal and group communication. At the societal level, communication usually patterns in terms of its function categories of talk, and attitudes and conceptions about language and speakers. It also patterns according to roles and groups within the society, such as sex, age, social status, and occupation. She also mentions varieties of
languages such as, varieties associated with setting, social class, role- relationship, sex, and age.
In the same vain as all of the above scholars, Porter & Samovar (1994: 19) argues that the link between culture and communication is crucial to understand intercultural communication because it is through the influence of culture that people learn to communicate. He further argues that to understand the other’s words and actions, we must try to understand their perceptual frame of reference, we must learn to understand how they perceive the world.
This scholar believes that in order to be effective in intercultural communication we must be aware of the relationship between culture and language. It further requires that we learn and know about the culture of the speaker with whom we communicate so that we can better understand how his or her language represents that person (Porter & Samovar 1994: 174).
Like other scholars, Porter & Samovar (1994: 227) recognizes the importance of understanding nonverbal messages and behaviors in an encounter. He contends that nonverbal behavior is largely unconscious. We use nonverbal symbols spontaneously, without thinking about what postures, what gestures, or what interpersonal distance is appropriate to the situation.
Culture tends to determine the specific nonverbal behaviors that represent specific thoughts, feelings, or states of communication. For example, what might be a sign of greeting in one culture could very well be an obscene gesture in another. Or what might be a symbol of affirmation in one culture could be meaningless or even signify negation in another.
Culture determines when it is appropriate to display emotions or communicate various thoughts, feelings or internal states. There are cultural differences in which emotions may be displayed, by whom, and when or where they may be displayed (Porter & Samovar 1994: 227).
This scholar differs somewhat from the others because he argues that human interaction takes place within some social and physical setting that influences how we construct and perceive messages. He further identifies three interrelated assumptions in which the sway of context is related. Firstly, communication is governed by rules, i.e. each encounter has implicit and explicit rules that regulate or conduct. These rules tell us everything from what appropriate attire to what topic can be discussed. Secondly, the setting helps us define what regulations are in operation. We behave differently fro courtroom, classroom, hospital, church or to dance hall. Thirdly, most communication rules we follow have been learned as part of cultural experience. Concepts of turn taking, time, space, language, manners, nonverbal behavior, silence, and control of the
communication flow largely on extension of each culture (Porter & Samovar 1994: 175).
It is, therefore, necessary for doctors whose cultural background differs from their patients, to know, not only about their culture and the culture of patients with whom they are communicating, but that patients must also know about their culture and the doctors’ culture as well. Unless there is mutual acknowledgement of each other’s culture and a willingness to accept those cultures as a reality governing communicative interactions, intercultural communication cannot rise to its highest possible level of human interaction.
In the following chapter, the information gathered from different sources and clinics will be analyzed with specific reference to doctors and patients from the same and different cultural and ethnic backgrounds in selected HIV/Aids clinics.