Verbal Comm Styles and Culture

Verbal Communication Styles and Culture

Meina Liu
Subject: Communication and Culture Online Publication Date: Nov 2016
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.162
Summary and Keywords
A communication style is the way people communicate with others, verbally and nonver
bally. It combines both language and nonverbal cues and is the meta-message that dic
tates how listeners receive and interpret verbal messages. Of the theoretical perspectives
proposed to understand cultural variations in communication styles, the most widely cit
ed one is the differentiation between high-context and low-context communication by Ed
ward Hall, in 1976. Low-context communication is used predominantly in individualistic
cultures and reflects an analytical thinking style, where most of the attention is given to
specific, focal objects independent of the surrounding environment; high-context commu
nication is used predominantly in collectivistic cultures and reflects a holistic thinking
style, where the larger context is taken into consideration when evaluating an action or
event. In low-context communication, most of the meaning is conveyed in the explicit ver
bal code, whereas in high-context communication, most of the information is either in the
physical context or internalized in the person, with very little information given in the
coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. The difference can be further explicated
through differences between communication styles that are direct and indirect (whether
messages reveal or camouflage the speaker’s true intentions), self-enhancing and self-ef
facing (whether messages promote or deemphasize positive aspects of the self), and elab
orate and understated (whether rich expressions or extensive use of silence, pauses, and
understatements characterize the communication). These stylistic differences can be at
tributed to the different language structures and compositional styles in different cul
tures, as many studies supporting the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis have shown. These stylistic
differences can become, in turn, a major source of misunderstanding, distrust, and con
flict in intercultural communication. A case in point is how the interethnic clash between
Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can be exacerbated by the two diametrically opposite
communication patterns they each have, dugri (straight talk) and musayra (to accommo
date or “to go along with”). Understanding differences in communication styles and
where these differences come from allows us to revise the interpretive frameworks we
tend to use to evaluate culturally different others and is a crucial step toward gaining a
greater understanding of ourselves and others.
Keywords: communication styles, cultural values, thinking styles, high-context, low-context, language, communica
tion accommodation
Page 1 of 16
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, COMMUNICATION (oxfordre.com/communication). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Pri
vacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 20 November 2019

It is widely acknowledged that people from different cultures communicate differently,

and the differences in communication styles become major sources of misunderstanding,
frustration, and conflict in intercultural communication. The communication styles of an
individual, which combine both verbal and nonverbal elements, are shaped and reshaped
by shared cultural values, worldviews, norms, and thinking styles of the cultural group to
which they belong. Needless to say, understanding the fundamental patterns of communi
cation styles as well as the underlying systems of thought that give rise to them will help
to reduce cultural barriers that hinder intercultural relationships and collaborations. This
article begins by introducing major theoretical frameworks that have been used to de
scribe culture. Next, fundamental patterns of communication styles will be introduced,
along with a discussion of the relationship between culture and language. Finally, implica
tions of cultural differences in communication styles will be discussed.
Cultural Frameworks
Culture has been defined in many ways. Some commonly applied definitions view culture
as patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting, common to a particular group of peo
ple and that are acquired and transmitted through the use of symbols. Others view cul
ture as a function of interrelated systems that include the ecology (e.g., the physical envi
ronment, resources, and geography), subsistence (e.g., how individuals use ecological re
sources to survive), and sociocultural systems (e.g., institutions, norms, roles, and values)
(Erez & Earley, 1993). It is fair to say that culture includes both objective and subjective
elements. These interrelated systems do not dictate culture; rather, we can use them as a
general framework to understand culture and its relation to individual and collective ac
tions.
A number of approaches have been used to describe and explain cultural differences. This
article focuses on two approaches that are most widely accepted and relevant to our un
derstanding of cultural variations in communication styles: value dimensions and thinking
styles. Value can be defined as an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct is so
cially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct. Values form the basis for
judging the desirability of some means or end of action. Once learned, values are inte
grated into an organized system of values that are relatively stable and serve a number of
functions for individuals, such as predisposing them to favor particular ideologies, guid
ing self-presentations, influencing how they communicate, and evaluating and judging
others’ decisions and behaviors. The most widely cited work on cultural values is Geert
Hofstede’s work on dimensions of cultural values.
Thinking style, or cognitive style, can be understood as a way of thinking that influences
how we feel and how we act; it’s how we process and categorize information, how we se
lect information to store in memory, and how we make inferences or attributions about
causality. Like cultural values, thinking styles direct an individual’s attention, guide his or
her interpretation of the communication context, and influence his or her communicative
choices. One influential theoretical framework to aid our understanding of cultural differ
Page 2 of 16

ences in thinking styles is Nisbett’s (2003) geography of thought theory, which explains
how people in different cultures perceive the world differently, where such differences
come from, and how thinking styles are related to cultural values.
Dimensions of Cultural Values

Based on a study of 88,000 IBM employees in 72 countries, between 1967 and 1973, Hof
stede (2001) identified four dimensions of cultural values: (a) individualism-collectivism,
with individualism defined as a loosely knit social framework in which people are sup
posed to take care of themselves and their immediate families only, and collectivism de
fined as a tight social network in which people distinguish between ingroups and out
groups, expect their ingroup to look after them, and in return they owe absolute loyalty to
it; (b) power distance, defined as the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power
is distributed unequally; (c) uncertainty avoidance, defined as the extent to which a soci
ety feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations; and (d) masculinity-feminini
ty, defined as the extent to which the dominant values in society are “masculine”—that is,
assertiveness and the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others. Later,
Hofstede and Bond (1988) added a fifth dimension, dynamic Confucianism, with long-term
orientation refers to future-oriented values such as persistence and thrift, whereas short-
term orientation refers to past- and present-oriented values, such as respect for tradition
and fulfilling social obligations. The individualism-collectivism dimension alone has in
spired thousands of empirical studies examining cultural differences.
More specifically, people in individualistic societies, such as the United States, Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa, and most of the northern and western European countries,
tend to emphasize individual rights, such as freedom, privacy, and autonomy. They tend to
view themselves as unique and special, and are free to express their individual thoughts,
opinions, and emotions. They value independence and self-reliance and emphasize indi
viduals’ responsibility and inner motivation, also described as having an internal locus of
control. Individualists also value equality; they do not differentiate between ingroups and
outgroups, applying the same standards universally, also known as universalism.
In comparison, people in collectivistic societies, such as most of Latin American, African,

and Asian countries, and the Middle East, tend to view themselves as part of an intercon
nected social network. They emphasize the obligations they have toward their ingroup
members, and are willing to sacrifice their individual needs and desires for the benefits of
the group. Collectivists also emphasize fitting in; they value a sense of belonging, harmo
ny, and conformity, and are more likely to exercise self control over their words and ac
tions because they consider it immature or imprudent to freely express one’s thoughts,
opinions, or emotions without taking into account their impact on others. They care about
their relationships with ingroups, often by treating them differently than strangers or out
group members, which is also known as particularism.
Page 3 of 16

In high power distance societies, such as many Latin American countries, most of African
and Asian counties, and most counties in the Mediterranean area, people generally ac
cept power as an integral part of the society. Hierarchy and power inequality are consid
ered appropriate and beneficial. The superiors are expected to take care of the subordi
nates, and in exchange for that, the subordinates owe obedience, loyalty, and deference
to them, much like the culture in the military. It is quite common in these cultures that
the seniors or the superiors take precedence in seating, eating, walking, and speaking,
whereas the juniors or the subordinates must wait and follow them to show proper re
spect. Similarly, the juniors and subordinates refrain from freely expressing their
thoughts, opinions, and emotions, particularly negative ones, such as disagreements,
doubts, anger, and so on. It is not surprising that, except for a couple of exceptions, such
as France, most high power distance societies are also collectivistic societies. In contrast,
in low power distance cultures, most of which are individualistic societies, people value
equality and seek to minimize or eliminate various kinds of social and class inequalities.
They value democracy, and juniors and subordinates are free to question or challenge au
thority.
People from high uncertainty avoidance cultures, such as many Latin American cultures,
Mediterranean cultures, and some European (e.g., Germany, Poland) and Asian cultures
(e.g., Japan, Pakistan) tend to have greater need for formal rules, standards, and struc
tures. Deviation from these rules and standards is considered disruptive and undesirable.
They also tend to avoid conflict, seek consensus, and take fewer risks. On the other hand,
in low uncertainty avoidance cultures people are more comfortable with unstructured sit
uations. Uncertainty and ambiguity are considered natural and necessary. They value cre
ativity and individual choice, and are free to take risks.
In masculine cultures, such as Mexico, Italy, Japan, and Australia, tough values, such as
achievements, ambition, power, and assertiveness, are preferred over tender values, such
as quality of life and compassion for the weak. In addition, gender roles are generally dis
tinct and complementary, which means that men and women place separate roles in the
society and are expected to differ in embracing these values. For example, men are ex
pected to be assertive, tough, and focus on material success, whereas women are expect
ed to be modest and tender, and to focus on improving the quality of life for the family. On
the other hand, in feminine cultures, such as most of Scandinavian cultures, genders
roles are fluid and flexible: Men and women do not necessarily have separate roles, and
they can switch their jobs while taking care of the family. Not only do feminine societies
care more about quality of life, service, and nurturance, but such tender values are em
braced by both men and women in the society.
Finally, the long-term orientation, based on the teachings of Confucius (also called Confu
cian Dynamism), deals with a society’s search for virtues. Societies with a long-term ori
entation, such as most East Asian societies, embrace future-oriented virtues such as
thrift, persistence, and perseverance, ordering relationships by status, and cultivating a
sense of shame for falling short of collective expectations. In contrast, societies with a
short-term orientation foster more present- or past-oriented virtues such as personal
Page 4 of 16

steadiness and stability, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and
gifts.
The Geography of Thought

The cognitive approach views culture as a complex knowledge system. From this perspec
tive, the key to understanding culture is to know the rules and scripts that guide action—
how do people make sense of their communication environment, and how does this influ
ence patterned action? An important line of research that expands our understanding of
cultural differences in cognitive patterns is Nisbett’s programmatic studies of thinking
styles in cross-cultural psychology.
By comparing the ecologies, economies, social structures, metaphysics, and epistemolo

gies in ancient China and ancient Greece, Nisbett (2003) proposed a Geography of
Thought theory to explain how Easterners and Westerners think differently and why. Ac
cording to Nisbett, the ecology of ancient China consisted of primarily fertile plains, low
mountains, and navigable rivers, which favored agriculture and made centralized control
of society relatively easy. As agriculture required people to stay in the geographical re
gion and collaborate with each other on tasks such as building an irrigation system that
could not be achieved individually, complex social systems were needed to manage re
sources and coordinate efforts. Human relationships, therefore, provided both the chief
constraint in people’s social life and a primary source of opportunities. As generation af
ter generation of people in farming communities must consider all kinds of social relation
ships when making important decisions, when they were confronted with a conflict of
views, they were naturally oriented toward avoiding the conflict or resolving the contra
dictions in a neutral way, known as “the middle way.” Hence, East Asians are considered
holistic thinkers and dialectical thinkers.
The ecology of ancient Greece, however, consisted mostly of mountains descending to the
sea, which favored hunting, herding, and fishing. These occupations required relatively
little cooperation with others. Nor did they require living in the same stable community.
Therefore, Ancient Greeks were able to act on their own to a greater extent than ancient
Chinese. In addition, the maritime location of ancient Greece made trading a lucrative oc
cupation. The city-state also made it possible for intellectual rebels to leave a location and
go to another one, maintaining the condition of a relatively free inquiry. As a result, an
cient Greeks were in the habit of arguing with one another in the marketplace and debat
ing one another in the political assembly. As less emphasis was placed on maintaining
harmonious social relationships, the Greeks had the luxury of attending to objects and
people without being overly constrained by their relations with other people. Over time,
they developed a view of causality based on the properties of the object, rather than
based on the larger environment. Hence, ancient Greeks were considered logical and an
alytical thinkers.
Page 5 of 16

Analytical thinking is field-independent. Analytical thinkers attend more to focal objects

and specific details; what is going on in the environment is less important. They also tend
to place focal elements into a cause-effect, linear, or sequential frame, assuming that
there is a clearly definable cause leading to the observed effects. On the other hand,
holistic thinking is field-dependent. Holistic thinkers tend to perceive events holistically
or within a large context. They assume that there is a coherent whole and individual parts
cannot be fully understood unless they are placed within the interdependent relation
ships. Metaphorically, whereas analytical thinkers view the world as a line, holistic
thinkers view the world as a circle.
To provide support for his theory, Nisbett and colleagues conducted a series of experi
ments to assess whether East Asians would differ from Americans in their attentional pat
terns. For example, in one of the experiments, they presented animated underwater
scenes to two groups of participants, from the United States and Japan, respectively, with
a mixture of active objects (e.g., fish), inert objects (e.g., snails), and background objects
(e.g., seaweeds), and asked them to describe what they saw (see Masuda & Nisbett,
2001). They found that (a) Japanese participants made more statements about contextual
information and relationships than Americans did, and (b) Japanese participants recog
nized previously seen objects more accurately when they saw them in their original set
tings rather than in the novel settings, whereas this manipulation had relatively little ef
fect on Americans. These findings provided substantial support for cognitive differences
between Easterners and Westerners.
Analytical thinkers also tend to be logical or polarized thinkers. They prefer logical argu
ments that apply the law of non-contradiction, which excludes the middle between being
and non-being—something either exists or does not exist. A proposition can be weakened
or falsified by demonstrating that it leads to a contradiction. In contrast, holistic thinkers
tend to be dialectical thinkers. They prefer dialectical arguments that apply the principles
of holism, which assumes that the world consists of opposing entities and forces that are
connected in time and space as a whole. Since everything is connected, one entity cannot
be fully understood unless we take into account how it affects and is affected by every
thing else. Unlike polarized or logical thinking that excludes the middle state, dialectical
thinking seeks to reconcile opposing views by finding a middle ground. Dialectical
thinkers accept grey areas, assuming that things constantly change.
Nisbett’s theory about cultural differences in logical and dialectical thinking also re
ceived empirical support. For example, Peng and Nisbett (1999) conducted a series of ex
periments and found that (a) dialectical thinking is reflected in Chinese folk wisdom, in
that dialectical proverbs are more preferred by Chinese than by Americans; (b) in re
sponse to a conflict situation, a significantly greater percentage of Chinese participants
prefer a dialectical resolution than Americans; and (c) when two apparently contradictory
propositions were presented, Americans polarized their views, whereas Chinese accepted
both propositions.
Page 6 of 16

High-Context and Low-Context Communication

Cultures
A communication style is the way people communicate with others verbally and nonver
bally. It combines both language and nonverbal cues and is the meta-message that dic
tates how listeners receive and interpret verbal messages. Scholars have proposed differ
ent typologies for describing communication styles. Of the theoretical perspectives pro
posed to understand cultural variations in communication styles, the most widely cited is
the differentiation between high-context and low-context communication by Edward Hall
(1976).
Hall’s high-context and low-context communication is inspired by Bernstein’s (1966) con

ceptualization of restricted and elaborate codes. Bernstein hypothesizes that our speech
patterns are conditioned by our social context. Restricted codes involve transmission of
messages through verbal (words) and nonverbal (intonation, facial features, gestures)
channels. They rely heavily on the hidden, implicit cues of the social context, such as in
terpersonal relationships, the physical and psychological environments, and other contex
tual cues. Jargons or “shorthand” speeches are examples of restricted codes where speak
ers are almost telegraphic in conveying their meanings: Succinct, simple assertions are
used “against a backdrop of assumptions common to the speakers, against a set of closely
shared interests and identifications, against a system of shared expectations; in short,
[they] presuppose a local cultural identity which reduces the need for the speakers to
elaborate their intent verbally and to make it explicit” (Bernstein, 1966, pp. 433–434).
Code words used by doctors, engineers, prisoners, street gangs, or between family mem
bers and close friends are highly implicit in meaning and are known primarily to the
members of such groups. Elaborated codes, on the other hand, involve the use of verbal
amplifications, or rich and expressive language, in transmitting meaning, placing relative
ly little reliance on nonverbal and other contextual cues. The verbal channel is the domi
nant source of information for transmitting elaborated codes; context is not critical in un
derstanding elaborated codes.
Although restricted and elaborated codes are universal styles of communication, accord
ing to Hall (1976), cultures differ in the importance they place on words, and one commu
nication style tends to be more predominant in one culture than another. Hall differentiat
ed between high-context and low-context communication cultures and argued that low-
context communication is used predominantly in individualistic cultures, whereas high-
context communication is used predominantly in collectivistic cultures. Specifically, high-
context communication occurs when most of the information is either in the physical con
text or internalized in the person, with very little information given in the coded, explicit,
transmitted part of the message. Members of high-context communication cultures rely
on their pre-existing knowledge of each other and the setting to convey or interpret
meaning, which reduces their reliance on explicit verbal codes. Explicit, direct messages
are considered either unnecessary or potentially face threatening. It is the receiver of the
Page 7 of 16

message who assumes responsibility for inferring the hidden or contextual meanings of
the message.
In contrast, in low-context communication most of the meaning is conveyed in the explicit

verbal code. Members of low-context communication cultures expect the message sender
to be direct, provide detailed information, and use unambiguous language because they
do not assume pre-existing knowledge of the people or the setting. If there is miscommu
nication or misunderstanding, the sender of the message is often held responsible for not
constructing a clear, direct, and unambiguous message for the listener to decode easily.
Researchers have provided considerable empirical evidence for the influence of individu
alism and collectivism on the use of high-context and low-context communication styles.
On a conceptual level, collectivistic and individualistic values shape the norms and rules
that guide behavior in these cultures. As members of individualistic cultures are social
ized into major societal values such as independence, freedom, and privacy, they tend to
acquire independent self-construals, viewing themselves as unique and unconstrained in
dividuals, free to express themselves and be direct. Therefore, they are more likely to
prefer a sender-oriented, low-context communication style. On the other hand, as mem
bers of collectivistic cultures are socialized into major societal values such as interdepen
dence, relational harmony, and connectedness, they tend to formulate interdependent
self-construals viewing themselves as part of encompassing social relationships whose be
haviors are largely influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the rela
tionship. Therefore they are more likely to prefer a receiver-oriented, high-context com
munication styles. On an empirical level, with data collected from the United States,
Japan, Korea, and Australia, Gudykunst and colleagues (1996) found evidence that the in
dividualistic and collectivistic values of members of these cultures are associated with
their independent and interdependent self-construals, both of which mediate the influ
ence of national culture on their high-context and low-context communication styles.
The differences between high-context versus low-context communication can also be ex
plained by cultural differences in thinking styles. The long tradition of the study of
rhetoric in the United States and many European cultures reflects the cultural pattern of
logical, rational, and analytical thinking. Attention is given primarily to the verbal mes
sage, independent of its communicative context. Speakers and listeners are viewed as
separate entities who enter a relationship through the transmission of messages. A prima
ry responsibility of the speaker is to express his or her ideas and thoughts as clearly, logi
cally, and persuasively as possibly, so that the listener, regardless of his or her back
ground and pre-existing knowledge, can fully comprehend the intended meaning of the
messages.
The systematic study of speech has not been as fully developed in collectivistic cultures
as in individualistic cultures. In East Asian cultures in particular, a holistic approach dic
tates how people evaluate speech. The words are considered only part of, and are insepa
rable from, the total communication context, which includes the personal characters of
the parties involved and the nature of the interpersonal relationships between them. In
Page 8 of 16

this holistic approach, verbal messages are means for enhancing social connection and
harmony rather than promoting the individuality of speakers. Verbal messages are also
important, but the emphasis is not placed on the technique of constructing and delivering
clear verbal messages for maximum persuasiveness. Instead, verbal messages should
conform to culturally defined rules or social expectations, based on already established
social relationships or on the positions of the communicators in the society. It is therefore
important to be sensitive to subtle and implicit contextual cues surrounding the communi
cation process to encode and decode meaning. Without the contextual bases, the speak
ers’ verbal messages are perceived to be pointless, awkward, or even deceitful.
Direct and Indirect Communication Styles

A case in point, to illustrate the difference between high-context and low-context commu
nication cultures, is the difference between direct and indirect communication styles. A
direct communication style, typically practiced in low-context communication cultures, is
one in which messages reveal the speaker’s true intentions, opinions, and needs, whereas
an indirect communication style is one in which the verbal message is often designed to
camouflage the speaker’s true intentions, opinions, and needs; in other words, the speak
er does not mean what he or she literally said. The indirect style reflects a cautious atti
tude towards the expression of negative and confrontational verbal messages; people
tend to use moderate or suppressed expressions for such messages whenever possible.
According to Gudykunst and Kim (2003), members of collectivistic cultures tend to be
concerned more with the overall emotional quality of interactions than with the meanings
of specific words or sentences. Courtesy often takes precedence over truthfulness, which
is consistent with the collectivistic cultures’ emphasis on maintaining social harmony as
the primary function of speech in interpersonal interactions. As a result, members from
collectivistic cultures tend to give an agreeable and pleasant answer to questions when
literal, factual answers might be perceived as unpleasant or embarrassing. For example,
a person who is invited to a party but cannot go, or does not feel like going, would say
yes, then simply not go, because a direct refusal is considered more face threatening. The
message receiver is expected to detect and appreciate the message sender’s desire to
protect mutual face through the use of an indirect refusal.
Whereas an indirect communication style fares well in collectivistic cultures, individualis

tic cultures, such as the United States and most European cultures, generally prefer a
more direct communication style. Good and competent communicators are expected to
say what they mean and mean what they say. A person who speaks dubiously or evasively
about an important matter is likely to be perceived unreliable, if not dishonest. A high de
gree of social approval is given to those who are capable of expressing ideas and feelings
in a precise, explicit, straightforward, and direct fashion. If misunderstanding occurs, the
message sender tends to assume the primary responsibility for failing to construct and
deliver an unambiguous message. Message receivers in these cultures rely on the specific
Page 9 of 16

words that are said to decode meaning, rather than paying attention to the relational or
identity aspect of the message that is never explicitly stated.
Self-Enhancement and Self-Effacement Com

munication Styles
Another dimension of communication styles that differentiates between high-context and
low-context communication cultures involves the degree to which positive aspects of the
self are attended, elaborated, and emphasized in interpersonal interactions: A self-en
hancement communication style is used when an individual is open and direct about his
or her abilities, contributions, or accomplishments, whereas a self-effacement communi
cation style is used when an individual uses verbal restraints, hesitations, modest talk,
and self-deprecation when discussing his or her own abilities, contributions, or accom
plishments, or when responding to others’ praises. In collectivistic cultures, such as Japan
and China, much of socialization emphasizes the use of self-criticisms by identifying one’s
shortcomings, deficits, or problems that prevent one from meeting consensual standards
of excellence shared in the society. According to Akimoto and Sanbonmatsu (1999), self-
effacement helps maintain group harmony because modesty may allow an individual to
avoid offense. By playing down one’s individual performance and stressing the contribu
tion of others, no one can be threatened or offended. In these high-context communica
tion cultures, the message receiver is expected to detect and appreciate the message
sender’s modesty, as well as the intention to enhance others’ face through self-efface
ment. It is generally assumed that praises should come from others and the use of self-ef
facement is often expected to result in the message receiver’s positive, rather than nega
tive, evaluations.
In individualistic, low-context communication cultures, however, much of socialization

emphasizes the use of encouragements to promote individuals’ self-esteem and self-effica
cy. Self-enhancement helps to promote individuality because it allows an individual to di
rectly assert thoughts, express desires, and promote his or her self-image. For example,
research shows that European Canadians are more satisfied with themselves than Japan
ese (Heine & Lehman, 1999). In addition, due to an analytical thinking style, members of
low-context communication cultures are likely to interpret self-effacement messages at
their face value. For example, research shows that European Americans perceive Japan
ese Americans who engage in self-effacing behaviors as low in competence, whereas
Japanese Americans do not perceive them as reflecting negative self-evaluations; rather,
they describe their behavior as appropriate for the communication context (Akimoto &
Sanbonmatsu, 1999).
Page 10 of 16

Elaborate and Understated Communication

Styles
The difference between high-context and low-context communication cultures can be fur
ther illustrated through the distinction between elaborate and understated communica
tion styles, which involves the degree to which talk is used: An elaborate style refers to
the use of expressive language, sometimes with exaggeration or animation, in everyday
conversations, whereas an understated style involves the extensive use of silence, pauses,
and understatements in conversations. Unlike previous dimensions of communication
styles that can be treated as dichotomies and entail opposing cultural values and cogni
tive styles, this dimension can be considered a continuum, with the United States falling
somewhere in the middle. The French, Arabs, Latin Americans, and Africans tend to use
an exaggerated communication style. For example, in Arab cultures, individuals often feel
compelled to over-assert in almost all types of communication because in their culture,
simple assertions may be interpreted to mean the opposite. The Arab proclivity to use
verbal exaggerations is considered responsible for many diplomatic misunderstandings
between the United States and Arab countries (Martin & Nakayama, 2013). Similarly,
compared with European Americans, whose communication style tends to be restrained
and subdued, African Americans’ interaction style is often emotionally animated and ex
pressive. Therefore, inter-ethnic miscommunication may arise when African Americans
perceive European Americans as verbally detached and distant, and European Americans
may perceive African Americans as emotionally threatening and intimidating.
On the other hand, many Asian cultures, such as the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and
Thai, tend to use an understated communication style. For example, whereas European
Americans tend to see talk as a means of social control and are more likely to initiate con
versations with others when opportunities present themselves, the Chinese tend to see si
lence as a control strategy. People who speak little tend to be trusted more than people
who speak a great deal; therefore, in such cultures silence allows an individual to be so
cially discreet, gain social acceptance, and avoid social penalty. Silence may also save in
dividuals from embarrassment. When conflict arises, using silence as an initial reaction
allows the conflict parties to calm down, exhibit emotional maturity, and take time to
identify conflict management strategies that are least face threatening. Silence may also
indicate disagreement, refusal, or anger. Such stylistic differences are also shared by
some ethnic groups in the United States. For example, silence is valued by Native Ameri
can tribes, particularly when social relations between individuals are unpredictable. In
addition, whereas European Americans tend to reserve silence for intimate relationships,
for Native Americans, talk is used when the relationship becomes more intimate, whereas
silence is used to protect the sense of vulnerable self from strangers. Such differences
may create problems in intercultural or interethnic communication. The tension between
Korean Americans and African Americans that led to civil unrest in Los Angeles, for exam
ple, can be partly explained by differences in communication styles. The use of animation
and exaggeration by African Americans, and the readiness to initiate conversations, may
be perceived by Korean Americans as threatening and insincere, whereas for African
Page 11 of 16

Americans, the verbal restraints and lack of nonverbal immediacy on the part of Korean
Americans may communicate a condescending and prejudicial attitude.
Language and Culture

According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the language we speak, especially the structure
of that language, determines how we perceive and experience the world around us. To
date, this position has received a number of criticisms; most research in the related areas
does not support a strict interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Nevertheless, con
siderable evidence shows that high-context and low-context communication styles can be
attributed to the languages spoken in different cultures.
The structures of Asian languages, for example, are found to promote ambiguity, and
therefore, a tendency to engage in high-context communication. Kashima and Kashima
(1998) examined the use of pronouns in 39 languages and found that cultures in which
speakers can drop the pronouns that indicate the subject of sentences are more collec
tivistic than cultures in which speakers cannot drop pronouns. For example, in the Eng
lish language, to produce a grammatically correct sentence, a subject, served by a noun
or pronoun, must precede a verb, as in the sentence “He came back.” In Chinese, howev
er, “came back” can stand alone as a correct sentence without a subject. The message re
ceiver must look for contextual cues in order to know who “came back.” In the Japanese
language, verbs come at the end of the sentence, after the object; therefore, the message
receiver cannot understand what is being said until the whole sentence is uttered. The
Japanese language also allows the speakers to talk for others without expressing their
opinions to others. For example, the Japanese “yes” (hai) simply indicates “I understand
what you mean,” instead of expressing agreement.
In a similar vein, difference in sentence structures and compositional rules also reflects
high-context and low-context communication styles. In the English language, the main
clause states the central idea, such as who does what, followed by a subordinate clause
that provides contextual cues, such as when, where, why, and how. In the Chinese lan
guage, however, it is the subordinate clause that is stated first, followed by the main
clause. For example, the sentence “I came late because of a bad traffic jam on Route 95,”
in English, would turn into “Because of a bad traffic jam on route 95, I came late,” in Chi
nese. Similarly, an effective English essay or speech must begin with a clear thesis state
ment in the introduction, followed by a main body that provides explanations and support
ing evidence. However, it is customary for a Chinese essay to begin with a detailed de
scription about the context or environment, and then move on to elaborate explanations
that lead to major arguments. Such a circular, high-context communication style is often
perceived as confusing, beating around the bushes, and ineffective by individuals from a
low-context communication culture.
Another good example of stylistic differences reflected in languages use is the contrast
between an elaborate communication style in the French culture and an understated
communication style in the Chinese culture by comparing the structures of their lan
Page 12 of 16

guages. The French language has numerous forms of variations in verbs for different sub
jects, tenses, and modes, whereas there is no variation for verbs in the Chinese language.
Whereas the time orientation is elaborately specified in the French language, one may
not be able to infer whether an event happened in the past or is about to happen in the
Chinese language by simply relying on the verbal message. Relying on the context to in
fer the entire meaning often becomes a necessity. Recent research has shown that such
communicative differences are associated with individuals’ economic behaviors, in that
individuals who speak inter-temporal languages (e.g., without tenses) tend to save more
than those who speak languages associated with future and present tenses (Chen, 2013).
Implications for Intercultural Communication

Cultural differences in communication styles, along with the underlying differences in
cultural values and thinking styles, become a major source of misunderstanding, distrust,
and conflict in intercultural communication, as they often evoke group-based identity per
ceptions, as well as corresponding stereotypes and prejudices toward culturally different
“outgroup” members. A case in point is how the long standing interethnic conflict be
tween Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs may be attributable, in part, to differences in
communication styles that, as discussed in earlier sections, reflect deep-rooted differ
ences in cultural values and thinking styles, besides a relational history between the two
nation states characterized by strife, violence, casualties, and sufferings due to con
tentions over territory rights and religion.
The Arab communication style can be described as high-context, indirect, and elaborate.
The speech pattern is referred to as musayra, which means “to accommodate” or “to go
along with,” and is a communication pattern that orients the speakers toward harmonious
social relations and a concern for face saving. Musayra includes four essential features:
repetitiveness (used primarily for complimenting and praising others, especially in asym
metrical status relations), indirectness (a cultural tendency to be interpersonally cau
tious, facilitating politeness and face saving), elaboration (an expressive and encompass
ing style leading to a deeper connection with the message receiver), and affectiveness
(with emotional appeal to build identification with the other and maintain positive face)
(Ellis & Maoz, 2011). In contrast, the communication style used by Israeli Jews is low-con
text, direct, pragmatic, and places an emphasis on assertiveness. This speech pattern is
called dugri, which means “straight talk,” and involves a conscious suspension of face
concerns to allow the free expression of the speaker’s thoughts, opinions, or preferences
that might pose a threat to the message receiver. Dugri represents a cultural identity for
Israeli Jews that developed over time in reaction to historical oppression and the Diaspo
ra experience of Jews. Strength, integrity, and the ability to perform dugri are cultural
values that weigh more strongly in interpersonal interactions than the maintenance of so
cial harmony for Israeli Jews.
The diametrically opposite communication patterns undoubtedly pose significant barriers

for improving inter-ethnic relations between Israel Jews and Palestinian Arabs. To facili
Page 13 of 16

tate intergroup dialogues between two cultural groups, it is of vital importance to help
both groups understand such stylistic differences as well as the underlying values and
histories that shape them. Scholars have noted that the use of dugri and musayra varies
from intergroup interactions to intragroup interactions, especially in communication set
tings conducive to intergroup dialogue: Both communication patterns are featured more
in communication between members of the same group. In an inter-ethnic communication
setting, Israeli Jews tend to modify their aggressive style and the Palestinians may take
advantage of the opportunity to make assertions, elaborate on them, and argue when nec
essary.
Therefore, cultural misunderstanding due to differences in communication styles can be

reduced by creating a context of equality, where one group does not dominate the other.
In addition, when members from high-context and low-context communication cultures in
teract with each other, it is important for both parties to engage in some degree of com
munication accommodation. The communication accommodation theory developed by
Giles and Byrun (1982) helps to guide such endeavors. According to this theory, there is a
tendency for members of ingroups to react favorably to outgroup members who engage in
communication convergence toward them, such as using a similar speech style or accent.
Ingroup members’ evaluation of outgroups is based on situational norms in the initial
stages of conversation and interpersonal convergence in later stages of the conversation.
For communication convergence to occur, there needs to be a match between speakers’
views of message receivers’ speech style, the actual style used, and the communication
norm in the context. If a stranger accommodates our communication style and we per
ceive the intention to be positive, it will reduce our uncertainty and anxiety and promote
greater rapport between the two parties.
Understanding differences in communication styles allows us to know how to communica

tively accommodate others in intercultural communication settings. For example, a high-
context communicator can be more direct and explicit about his or her true intentions
when communicating with someone from a low-context communication culture, with the
understanding that the person will pay more attention to the actual verbal message than
contextual cues, and care more about message clarity, integrity, and directness than sav
ing face. Likewise, a low-context communicator can be more sensitive to situational cues
and use a more indirect style, especially for messages that are potentially face threaten
ing, when communicating with someone from a high-context communication culture, with
the understanding that the other person is more oriented toward relational harmony and
face saving.
To sum up, understanding how people from different cultures communicate and where
these cross-cultural differences come from helps us revise the interpretive framework we
tend to use to evaluate others’ behaviors, construct messages that are less likely to evoke
misunderstanding and distrust, and have a more open and flexible attitude in intercultur
al communication. It also allows us to develop empathy and patience for culturally differ
ent others and to negotiate these differences by educating them about our own styles,
perspectives, values, and assumptions. As the world becomes increasingly diverse, such
Page 14 of 16

knowledge can be crucial toward gaining a greater understanding of ourselves and the
strangers we meet and for building stronger relations across cultures.
Further Reading
Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York:
Morrow.
Geert Hofstede.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.). (2013). The SAGE handbook of conflict communica
tion: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk

across cultures. London: Continuum.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Korzenny, F. (1989). Language, communication, and culture: Current
directions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
World Values Survey.
References
Akimoto, S., & Sanbonmatsu, D. (1999). Differences in self-effacing behaviors between
European and Japanese Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 159–177.
Bernstein, B. (1966). Elaborated and restricted codes: An outline. Sociological Inquiry,

36, 253–261.
Chen, M. K. (2013). The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings
rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets. American Economic Review, 103, 690–731.
Ellis, D. G., & Maoz, I. (2011). Cross-cultural argument interactions between Israeli-Jews
and Palestinians, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 181–194.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
Giles, H., & Byrun, J. (1982). The intergroup theory of second language acquisition. Jour
nal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17–40.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to in
tercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual
Page 15 of 16

values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22,

510–543.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Heine, S., & Lehman, D. (1999). Culture, self-discrepancies, and self-satisfaction. Person
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 915–925.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,

and organizations across nations (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5–21.
Kashima, E., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy
chology, 29, 461–486.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2013). Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically vs. analytically: Comparing the
context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo
gy, 81, 922–934.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differ
ently … and why. New York: The Free Press.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
Meina Liu
Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, George Washington Uni

versity
Page 16 of 16

Verbal Comm Styles and Culture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Verbal Comm Styles and Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Verbal Communication Styles and Culture

Verbal Communication Styles and Culture

Summary and Keywords

date: 20 November 2019

It is widely acknowledged that people from different cultures communicate differently,

date: 20 November 2019

Dimensions of Cultural Values

In comparison, people in collectivistic societies, such as most of Latin American, African,

date: 20 November 2019

date: 20 November 2019

The Geography of Thought

By comparing the ecologies, economies, social structures, metaphysics, and epistemolo­

date: 20 November 2019

Analytical thinking is field-independent. Analytical thinkers attend more to focal objects

date: 20 November 2019

High-Context and Low-Context Communication

Hall’s high-context and low-context communication is inspired by Bernstein’s (1966) con­

date: 20 November 2019

In contrast, in low-context communication most of the meaning is conveyed in the explicit

date: 20 November 2019

Direct and Indirect Communication Styles

Whereas an indirect communication style fares well in collectivistic cultures, individualis­

date: 20 November 2019

Self-Enhancement and Self-Effacement Com­

In individualistic, low-context communication cultures, however, much of socialization

date: 20 November 2019

Elaborate and Understated Communication

date: 20 November 2019

Language and Culture

date: 20 November 2019

Implications for Intercultural Communication

The diametrically opposite communication patterns undoubtedly pose significant barriers

date: 20 November 2019

Therefore, cultural misunderstanding due to differences in communication styles can be

Understanding differences in communication styles allows us to know how to communica­

date: 20 November 2019

Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk

World Values Survey.

Bernstein, B. (1966). Elaborated and restricted codes: An outline. Sociological Inquiry,

date: 20 November 2019

values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22,

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,

Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, George Washington Uni­

date: 20 November 2019

You might also like

By comparing the ecologies, economies, social structures, metaphysics, and epistemolo

Hall’s high-context and low-context communication is inspired by Bernstein’s (1966) con

Whereas an indirect communication style fares well in collectivistic cultures, individualis

Self-Enhancement and Self-Effacement Com

Understanding differences in communication styles allows us to know how to communica

Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, George Washington Uni