The Review of Communication

ISSN: (Print) 1535-8593 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rroc20

Culture and Communication Style

Vijai N. Giri

To cite this article: Vijai N. Giri (2006) Culture and Communication Style, The Review of
Communication, 6:1-2, 124-130, DOI: 10.1080/15358590600763391

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15358590600763391

Published online: 19 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4557

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rroc20
The Review of Communication
Vol. 6, No. 1
2, January
April 2006, pp. 124
130

Culture and Communication Style

Vijai N. Giri

Communication and culture have a great influence on each other. With changing times,
the socio-economic conditions of individuals are also changing. The effect of these
changes is reflected in the communication behavior of people. Past experiences,
perception, and cultural background greatly affect the way people talk and behave.
Culture plays an important role in shaping the style of communication. Generally, people
react to how we speak rather than what we say. This analysis examines the relationship
between culture and cross-cultural communication style, and reviews how culture and
communication are interdependent. Communication behaviors in some cultures,
particularly Indian culture, are also been examined.

Communication and culture reciprocally influence each other. The culture in which
individuals are socialized influences the way they communicate, and the way
individuals communicate can change the culture. Culture provides its members
with an implicit knowledge about how to behave in different situations and how to
interpret others’ behavior in such situations. In fact, since time immemorial,
communication has been an integral part of culture and, as culture advances, the
communication patterns of individuals change.
Culture can be seen as including everything that is man-made. Hall (1959), for
example, believes that ‘‘culture is communication and communication is culture’’
(p. 169). Birdwhistell (1970) takes a slightly different position, suggesting, ‘‘[C]ulture
and communication are terms which represent two different viewpoints or methods
of representation of patterned and structured interconnectedness. As ‘culture’ the
focus is on structure, as ‘communication’ it is on process’’ (p. 318).
Culture describes a group’s relatively homogeneous evaluations of multiple,
interrelated phenomena. Members of a culture share a worldview (including beliefs
and value systems) that is sustained through communication (Gudykunst & Kim,
1992; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Trompenaars, 1993).
According to Murphy, Hildebrandt, and Thomas (1997) culture refers to the behavioral
characteristics typical of a group. This definition implies that communications, oral
and nonverbal, within a group are typical of that group and are often unique.

Vijai N. Giri is Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur. Correspondence to: Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur-721302, India. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1535-8593 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/15358590600763391
 Culture and Communication Style 125

It is difficult to assert that definite behaviors will consistently be used throughout a

country by all persons. With changing times, culture also changes. Ethnic diversities
change. Thus, it is necessary to recognize that one’s own country is a mixture of
various ethnic groups; understanding the diversity of one’s own country is
fundamental before looking abroad. One should avoid drawing conclusions for an
entire cultural group based on only a few examples.
Thus, what is meant by culture is the entire body of meaningful objects,
institutions, and texts in which a given society’s values are expressed. Culture is
what mediates between individuals and their society. This mediation takes the form
of books, paintings, drawings, films, television, and other media products.
Culture is an ever-changing process. It can’t be static. Change is a fact of nature; so
it is with culture. What we call culture results from the combined efforts of human
beings, over time, to assure as far as possible that their survival needs are met. Thus, it
can be argued that, rather than being totally dominated by a culture, people
frequently negotiate and re-negotiate the meanings of cultural concepts and value-
systems.

Communication Style
Style refers to the way one communicates. Human beings are defined, in part, by their
styles of communication. Business people contract and consult. Artists strip down to
emotions and impulses. Scientists relay data across space while interchanging
theories. All of these humans attempt to share their experiences in life with other
humans. All of them have separate, vital styles which not only identify them to each
other but also, in many ways, identify them to themselves.
The construct of communication style has long been a topic of interest among
scholars. During the Roman times, style was one of the ‘‘five canons of rhetoric’’
(Norton, 1983, p. 7) and Aristotle’s observations of and recommendations for
speaking style are still found in contemporary college textbooks. Thus, the way people
perceive themselves interacting and communicating with others is called commu-
nication style (Norton, 1978, 1983).
Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson’s content and relational communication model
(1967) defines the study of style, which focuses on the message’s interpretation by the
receiver and its impact on what is being said and how it is being said.
Communication style is ‘‘the way one verbally, nonverbally, and paraverbally interacts
to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood’’
(Norton, 1983, p. 11). Tannen (1986) mentions that people have different
conversational styles. So, when speakers from different parts of the country, or of
different ethnic or class backgrounds, talk to each other, it is likely that their words
will not be understood exactly as they were meant.
Norton (1978) identified nine different styles of communication. Norton’s
Communicator Style Scale (1983) examines nine variables: dominant, dramatic,
contentious, animated, impression-leaving , relaxed, attentive, open, and friendly. A
dominant communicator takes charge of the conversation, while a contentious style
126 V. N. Giri

is more argumentative. A dramatic communicator uses stories, metaphors,

exaggerated movements, etc., while an animated style refers to the use of subtle
nonverbal cues. A relaxed communicator shows low tension levels; while an attentive
communicator lets others know that he or she is listening. A person who readily
reveals information about himself or herself is described as open, and a person who
leaves an impact on the receiver’s memory has used an impression-leaving style. The
friendly style recognizes others positively. Further, Norton (1983) has concluded that
these nine components actually reflect a single continuum ranging from nondirective
communicative style through to directive communicative style. The nondirective style
embraces the attentive communicator who encourages, accommodates, and acknowl-
edges others. On the other end of the continuum, the directive style involves the
dominant communicator who talks frequently and takes control in social situations
(Kirtley & Weaver, 1999). It has also been found that gender role affects
communication style (Giri, 2002).
Richmond and McCroskey (1990) developed the Assertiveness
Responsiveness
Measure. Assertiveness reflects a person’s willingness to speak up for her- or himself
in interaction or let others take advantage of her/him. Responsiveness involves being
other-oriented, considering others’ feelings, and listening to what others say. This is
sometimes considered to be the ‘‘relational’’ aspect of the socio-communicative
orientation and socio-communicative style (McCroskey & Richmond, 2000).
A tool for exploring variations in the way people perceive themselves interacting
with others is the Communication Style Profile Test (CSPT) by McCallister (1994).
McCallister’s conceptualization of communication style, which appears to have
evolved from the earlier work of Norton (1978) and Hart, Carlson, and Eadie (1980),
involves three predominant styles that are labelled: noble, Socratic, and reflective. The
noble communicator is conceptualized as a direct and straightforward person who
feels obligated to state the truth. A Socratic is a verbose, analytical communicator
who is concerned with details, and a reflective is a warm, supportive communicator
who is concerned with interpersonal relations and the need to avoid conflict.
Regarding the naming of these three dominant communication styles, McCallister
states that to give equal importance to these styles the terms have been grounded in
the rhetorical tradition. Noble is very Aristotelian, the Socratic is obviously akin to
Socrates, and the reflective is reminiscent of Plato.
McCallister further states that communication style is a matter of choice. No one
style is better than the others. It is not something with which we are born and die. It is
something that we learn and develop over time. Effective leaders develop the ability to
use more than one style. It is not a personality trait that will never change. Everyone
has the potential to use all three patterns of communication (i.e., noble, Socratic,
reflective), but people tend to use one pattern predominantly (McCallister, 1994).

Cross-Cultural Communication Style

Cross-cultural factors clearly create the potential for increased communication
problems. Munter (1993) has identified four specific problems related to language
 Culture and Communication Style 127

difficulties in cross-cultural communications. First, there are barriers caused by

semantics. It is important to note that words mean different things to different
people. This is particularly true for people from different cultures. In Indian culture,
some words*for instance bhismpratigya, or sanskar* can’t directly be translated
into English.
Second, there are barriers caused by word connotations. Words imply different
things in different languages. Negotiations between American and Japanese execu-
tives, for instance, are made more difficult because the Japanese word hai translates as
‘‘yes’’ but its connotation may be ‘‘yes, I’m listening,’’ rather than ‘‘yes, I agree.’’
Third, barriers are caused by tone differences. In some cultures, language is formal;
in others, it’s informal. In some cultures, the tone changes depending on the context:
people speak differently at home, in social situations, and at work. Using a personal,
informal style in a situation where a more formal style is expected can be
embarrassing and off-putting. For example, Indian waitresses use a falling intonation
when offering food to customers. Although both Indians and Americans consider the
act of asking a polite behavior, Americans ask questions with a rising intonation. This
difference, i.e., offer with a falling intonation, is considered to be rude and
inappropriate by American customers (Maltz & Borker, 1982).
Fourth, there are barriers caused by differences in perception. People who speak
different languages actually view the world in different ways. Eskimos perceive snow
differently because they have many words for it. Thais perceive ‘‘no’’ differently to
Americans because the former have no such word in their vocabulary. Similarly,
Indian culture is very context-sensitive. The communication style of Indians changes
very frequently depending on the context.
Cultures differ radically in their use of space, touch, time, and artifacts; in the
symbolism of their attire; in their use of kinesic and vocalic cues; in short, in all
nonverbal codes (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). As one illustration, a distinction
is often made between ‘‘contact cultures’’*which prefer close interaction distances,
frequent use of touch, higher rate of gaze, and more gestural animation*and their
opposites, ‘‘noncontact cultures.’’ Although this distinction has been criticized as
overly simplistic, it reveals that people’s habitual interpersonal styles differ depending
upon their cultural heritage. Even where cultures have similar behavior patterns,
cultural display rules may modify the exhibited pattern and the circumstances of
behavior performance. Further, by violating a culture’s norms (for example, wearing
Western dress in a Moslem culture), one may send a message distancing oneself from
that culture and repudiating that identity. Mulac, Studley, Wiemann, and Bradac
(1987) state:
An extensive body of research has shown that social groups are distinguishable in
terms of their communication style, whether verbal (syntax and semantics),
paralinguistic (phonology and prosody), or nonverbal (for example, proximity,
gestures, and facial expression). Functionally, it has been argued that a group’s
communication style helps members identify with one another while distinguishing
themselves from outgroup members. (p. 324)
128 V. N. Giri

Some Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication

Most of our basic emotions, like sadness, happiness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust,
are universal, but the contexts *when, where, and to whom to display these
emotions*are culturally bound. They are learnt within the culture to which we were
born and in which we were raised (Ekman & Friesen, 1971). Thus, it is evident that
culture shapes our style of communication.
Americans and Europeans tend to see nonverbal communication as ancillary to
verbal communication, while in other parts of the world, for example in India, the
nonverbal code may be used to convey the major message. Hindus greet one another
by placing their palms together in front of them while bowing their heads slightly.
This greeting behavior reflects the Hindu belief that God exists in everyone. In
traditional Hindu families, children greet their parents by touching their feet.
Children and younger people also touch the feet of elderly people to get their
blessings. This behavior is very much praised in Indian society. In other cultures like
Thailand or Malaysia, patting the top of a child’s head is not done, since the head is
considered sacred and the centre of a person’s spiritual as well as intellectual powers.
Thus, understanding that our way of greeting or appropriate touching behavior is
ours, and differs across cultures, can help us understand that there are other ways of
doing things as well as our own (cf. Calloway-Thomas, Cooper, & Blake, 1999).
In Indian culture, touching has a very wide range of meanings. Untouchability, a
curse in Indian society, exists even today in certain parts of the country. In northern
India, in certain relationships some family members are not supposed to touch each
other, particularly a brother and his younger brother’s wife. Further, touching the
opposite sex is not very common in Indian society. A man will not touch a woman or
even shake hands, as it not widely accepted in Indian culture.
The use of time also has its significance in communication. In Indian culture,
sometimes late and waiting might not be as important as it is in many Western
cultures. Misjudgments and misuses of these different time systems can lead others to
interpret nonverbal behaviors inaccurately.
In Japan, prolonged eye contact is considered rude, threatening, and disrespectful
(Morsbach, 1982). In India, women usually do not tend to have direct eye contact
with strangers. A number of messages can be sent through our eyes. Many researches
have confirmed that women maintain more eye contact than do men; women look at
other women more and hold eye contact longer with one another than men do.
Korean, Japanese, and Chinese people do not usually show outward signs of emotion
through their faces. In fact, in these cultures people have learnt to mask their
emotions.

The Power of Silence

Silence is a powerful form of nonverbal communication. In Eastern countries, when
silence occurs during conversations, people do not get angry or try to break the
conversation. The conversation picks up naturally after the phase of silence. It sends
 Culture and Communication Style 129

us nonverbal cues when we participate in various interactions. The power of silence

can be realized in countries like Japan, China, Thailand, and India. It is a very
complex nonverbal communication, because the meaning of silence varies depending
on the context.
Silence cues may be interpreted as evidence of agreement, lack of interest, injured
feelings, or contempt. The intercultural implications of silence are as diverse as those
of other nonverbal cues. As Crystal (1987) illustrates, cross-cultural differences are
common over when to talk and when to remain silent, or what a particular instance
of silence means. In response to the question ‘‘Will you marry me?’’ silence in English
would be interpreted as uncertainty; in Japanese it would be interpreted as
acceptance. In Igbo, it would be considered a denial if the woman were to continue
to stand there and an acceptance if she ran away (p. 172). In India, sometimes people
use silence as a defence to avoid controversial issues. Some Hindus practice silence as
a religious ritual called maunbrat. In families, usually, children keep silent in front of
their father, when they are being scolded for doing something wrong. The power of
silence is so strong in Indian society that, frequently, quarrels in joint families or
quarrels between wife and husband are avoided as one party keeps silent. When
arranging a marriage, if the girl smiles and leaves the spot, her consent for marriage is
taken for granted by parents and relatives. In married life, wives generally understand
the message of silence from their husbands.
In fact, there is a belief in many Eastern traditions that words can contaminate an
experience and that inner peace and wisdom come only through silence. Barnlund
(1989) says of Buddhism: ‘‘One of its tenets is that words are deceptive and silent
intuition is a truer way to confront the world; mind-to-mind communication
through words is less reliable than heart-to-heart communication through an
intuitive grasp of things’’ (p. 142). Further Buddhism teaches that ‘‘what is real is,
and when it is spoken it becomes unreal.’’
Silence is not a meaningful part of the life of most members of the dominant
cultures, like the Unites States, Great Britain, Germany, and France. The view of
silence in Western culture is very different from that of Eastern culture. The members
of Western culture believe in direct communication and like to express their feelings
and emotions verbally. They would not hesitate to say ‘‘‘no’’ and they have no
problem with criticizing a person to his/ her face.

Conclusion
Individuals learn the norms and rules of appropriate or inappropriate interpersonal
conduct, and effective or ineffective interpersonal communication, within the webs of
their culture. On a specific level, cultural values and norms influence the expectations
that we hold regarding the development of interpersonal relationships. With
globalization and modern information technology, the world has become smaller.
People are coming closer to each other; understanding the culture and the
communication styles of different peoples has become a vital issue.
130 V. N. Giri

References
Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities .
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Birdwhistell, R. (1970). Kinesics and context . New York: Ballentine.
Calloway-Thomas, C., Cooper, P. J., & Blake, C. (1999). Intercultural communication: Roots and
routes . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17 , 124
129.
Giri, V. N. (2002). Effect of gender role on communication style. International Journal of
Communication , 12 , 21
38.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication . Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., & Eadie, W. F (1980). Attitudes toward communication and the
assessment of rhetorical sensitivity. Communication Monographs , 47 , 1
22.
Kirtley, M. D., & Weaver, J. B., III (1999). Exploring the impact of gender role self-perception on
communication style. Women’s Studies in Communication , 22 , 190
209.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male
female miscommunication. In J.
Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 146
216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
McCallister, L. (1994). 1 wish I’d said that! . New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2000). Applying reciprocity and accommodation theories to
supervisor/subordinate communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 28 ,
278
289.
Morsbach, H. (1982). Aspects of nonverbal communication in Japan. In L. A. Samovar & R. E.
Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 300
319). Belmont, CA: Wads-
worth.
Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., Wiemann, J. M., & Bradac, J. J. (1987). Male/female gaze in same-sex and
mixed-sex dyads. Human Communication Research , 13 , 323
343.
Munter, M. (1993). Cross-cultural communication for managers. Business Horizons , 36 , 69
78.
Murphy, H. A., Hildebrandt, H. W., & Thomas, J. P. (1997). Effective business communication . New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Norton, R. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication
Research , 4 , 99
112.
Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures . Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the
assertiveness-responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports , 67 , 449
450.
Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant! How conversational style makes or breaks your relations
with others . New York: William Morrow and Company.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism

collectivism: Cross-cultural studies on self
ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54 , 323
338.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture . London: The Economist Books.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of
interpersonal patterns, pathologies and paradoxes . New York: Norton Company.