VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION
GRADUATION PAPER
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF LOW-
CONTEXT CULTURE IN THE FIRST DEBATE
BY THE US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
BARACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY
Supervisor: Ngo Huu Hoang Ph.D
Student: Doan Phuong Linh
Year of enrolment: QH2009
Hanoi, May 2013
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH
KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
MỘT VÀI ĐẶC TÍNH CỦA
VĂN HÓA NGỮ CẢNH
THẤP TRONG CUỘC
TRANH LUẬN ĐẦU TIÊN
CỦA CÁC ỨNG CỬ VIÊN
TỔNG THỐNG MỸ
BARACK OBAMA VÀ
MITT ROMNEY
Giáo viên hướng dẫn:
Tiến sỹ Ngô Hữu Hoàng
Sinh viên: Doãn
Phương Linh
Khoá: QH2009
Hà Nội – Năm 2013
Acceptance page

The thesis analyzed the first debate between the two typical representatives of
the United States in terms of low-context culture. The major aim of this thesis was
to explore how characteristics of low-context culture expressed through the way
two US presidential candidates debated. Case study and document analysis were
chosen as the main approach way and method of this study. Collected documents
were analyzed and finally conclusion was drawn out from the analyzed data. As a
result of completing the above procedure, the researcher has found out some
characteristics of low-context culture expressed clearly through the first debate by
the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They are relying
on facts and statistics, using direct style in speaking, and employing linear logic.
Obama often gave more details but less clear structure than Romney did. Besides,
characteristics of low-context culture also affected to language strategies of the two
presidential candidates including lexical strategies and grammatical strategies. Both
candidates used simple words and spoken words with literal meaning. However,
Mitt Romney communicated more explicitly because he used shorter and simple
sentences so that the audiences could easily get his points. This study helps us
understand more about the communicative ways of the two presidential candidates
in particular and the people in the United States, a low-context culture in general.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF TABLES
v

2.4 Ethical issue
13
Chapter 3: Results and discussion.
3.1 Some characteristics of low-context culture expressed through the first
debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
14
3.1.1 Rely on facts and statistics
14
3.1.2. Use direct style in speaking
19
3.1.3 Employ linear logic
21
3.2. Vebal strategies by the presidential candidates
28
3.2.1 Lexical strategies
28
3.2.2 Grammatical strategies
31
PART 5: CONCLUSION
1. Major findings of the research
38
2. Limitations
39
3. Implications
40
4. Suggestion for further studies
40
REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX 45
iv

2. Aims of the study
To raise the researcher’s awareness of the communicative ways in the major fields
of society, politics, education and culture as an English and international culture
learner.
3. Significance of the study
- helps us understand more about low-context culture to distinguish between low-
context and high-context cultures.
- helps us understand more about politics and life in the world.
- brings about a new and interesting way to approach and find out the politic life
through approaching and finding out the culture.
4. Scope of the study

The study focuses only on some characteristics of low-context culture expressed in
the first debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
The research just concentrates on analyzing verbal arguments of the two candidates.
5. Research questions
- What are some characteristics of the first presidential debate by Barack Obama
and Mitt Romney in term of low-context culture?
- What are verbal strategies by the two presidential candidates?
- What are the lessons from low-context culture’s characteristics?
2
6. Organization of study
- Part 1 introduces the problem statement, the reason why the topic is worth
researching, the research aims and objectives, the significance of the study, the
research questions and the scope of study.
- Part 2 includes three chapters:
+ Chapter 1 presents a review of literature, relevant research associated with the
problem addressed in this study and theoretical background.
+ Chapter 2 presents the methodology and procedures used for data collection
and analysis.

perceived, Angela Gamsriegler has found out that “perceptual patterns are selective,
learned, consistent, inaccurate and, most importantly, culturally determined.” Finally,
she has concluded that “two people from different cultures will not only communicate
in different ways but also experience a situation differently.”
In another research called “Inference and culture: the distinction between low-
context culture and high context culture as a possible explanation between cultural
differences in cognition” of Hiroshi Yama and Norhayati Zakaria propose another
possible cultural and Eastern high context culture (Hall, 1976). Hiroshi Yama and
Norhayati Zakaria has seen a distinction in cognitive behaviors between Easterners and
Westerners that is while Westerners usually use holistic thinking to solve problems,
Westerners use analytic thinking more often. “This distinction in cognitive behaviors
has often been explained by using a framework based on the fact that Western culture
favors independent self-construal (individualist culture) and Eastern culture favors
interdependent self-construal (collectivist culture).” The two researchers particularly
focus on “the difference between the rule-based inference more common in low-
context Western cultures and the dialectical inference more common in high-context
Eastern cultures”. Besides, they have argued that rule-based inference using global
rules is more adaptive in low context cultures. In the conclusion, the primary goal to
propose a possible explanation for cultural differences in cognition of this paper has
clarified. The cultural differences in cognition include “the analytic cognition practiced
by Western cultures and the holistic cognition practiced by Eastern cultures”. Instead
of using the distinction between Western individualist culture and Eastern collectivist
culture, the two researchers used “the distinction between low context culture in the
West and high context culture in the East”. The two researchers have proposed a new
framework which is “contrasted with that of cultural psychologists (e.g., Nisbett, 2003;
5
Nisbett et al., 2001), who assume that culture and mind are inseparable and emphasize
the role of self-construal in culture and cognitive style.” Their framework has shown
that “culture and context are inseparable and, as such, that context has a strong
connection to the types of information required in order to draw effective meanings or

object to analyze. The researcher can be sure that this research does not overlap with
anyone or anything.
1.2 Theoretical background
1.2.1 Low-context culture and high-context culture
There are two types of cultures including low-context culture and high- context
culture. Generally, in low-context, people often spell out more of the information
explicitly in the message. In contrast, in high-context culture most of the information is
inferred from the context of the message, little is spelled out. For example: An
American woman would like to drink a cup of coffee with no sugar and more fresh
milk. She orders it online and she has to specify all these details. This is low-context
communication. Whereas, a Vietnamese woman just have to say to the waiter: “như cũ
nhé!” (same as last time please!). The waiter can immediately understand what she
want and bring her the favorite cup of coffee. In this case, the waiter can do that
because he had the background information about this loyal customer. He has known
so well which the customer want and which the customer chose last time. “In high-
context communication, the message cannot be understood without a great deal of
background information.” (John Hooker, 2008).
Edward T. Hall is the anthropologist who made early discoveries of key cultural
factors, especially high and low context cultural factors. His theory of high- and low-
7
context culture helps us better understand the powerful effect culture has on
communication. According to Hall, “in a high-context culture, there are many
contextual elements that help people to understand the rules. As a result, much is taken
for granted. This can be very confusing for person who does not understand the
'unwritten rules' of the culture.” In contrast, “in a low-context culture, very little is
taken for granted. Whilst this means that more explanation is needed, it also means
there is less chance of misunderstanding particularly when visitors are present.”
Edward T Hall also wrote that:
A high-context communication or message is one in which most of the
information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded explicitly,

Table 1.2.2 b
LOW-CONTEXT CULTURE HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURE
Relies on explicit communication Relies on implicit communication
Emphasizes verbal communication Emphasizes nonverbal communication
Separates tasks from relationships Subordinates tasks to relationships
Emphasizes individual initiative and
decision making
Emphasizes collective initiative and
decision making
View employer/employee relationships as
mechanistic
Views employer/employee relationship as
humanistic
Relies on facts and statistics Relies on intuition or trust
Uses direct style in writing and speaking Uses indirect style in writing and
speaking
Prefers linear reasoning Prefers circular or indirect reasoning
Adheres to the letter of the law Adhere to the spirit of the law
- According to Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy, 2010
Table 1.2.2 c
LOW-CONTEXT CULTURE HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURE
Tend to prefer direct verbal interaction Tend to prefer indirect verbal interaction
Tend to understand meaning at one level
only
Tend to understand meanings embedded
at many sociocultural levels
Are generally less proficient in reading Are generally more proficient in reading
9
nonverbal cues nonverbal cues
Value individualism Value group membership

Romney hosted by Jim Lehrer of the "PBS NewsHour" and sponsored by the bipartisan
Commission on Presidential Debates had occurred at the Magness Arena at the
University of Denver in Denver, Colorado on Wednesday, October 3
rd
, 2012. During
90 minutes of the first debate, the two candidates would discuss about domestic issues,
and will follow a format designed by the commission. There were six roughly 15-
minute segments, with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion
for the remainder of each segment. These segments were three on the economy and one
each on health care, the role of government, and governing, with an emphasis
throughout on differences, specifics and choices. Both candidates had two-minute
closing statements.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This is a descriptive analitic case study. It consits of a case study approach,
research methods and instruments, data analysis and ethical issue.
2.1 The case study approach
This study employed a case study approach. Case study was specifically selected
because it allows researchers an in-depth study of a target phenomenon in a single case
(Bell, 2005). As the current study objectives at seeking some characteristics expressed
11
through the first presidential debate by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in term of
low-context culture and verbal strategies used by the two presidential candidates, case
study would be the most suitable approach.
2.2 Research methods and instruments
Document analysis was chosen as the main method of this study. The researcher
had to collect documents from many sources including books, articles, and the Google
search pages. A variety of keyword descriptions were used in searching such as low-
context culture, high-context culture, characteristics of low-context culture, feature of
low-context culture’s communication, first debate of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,

3.1.1 Rely on facts and statistics.
It is easy to see that facts and statistics appear many times in the first debate
between the two presidential candidates. They appeared in almost all speaking turns of
the the presidential candidates. After counted and synthesized, the researcher found out
13
that in this debate, there was at least 65 times Barack Obama and Mitt Romney used
facts. In which, Barack Obama used about 31 times and Mitt Romney used not less
than 34 times. However, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney delivered about 53
statistics each one. Although facts and statistics would be the effective tools for the two
presidential candidates to prove their argument, very high appearing frequency of them
has made some people even feel difficult to follow the debate.
For example, when talking about the job problems, Barack Obama had shown
some facts and statistics such as “four years ago we went through the worst financial
crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost.”, and “Over the last 30
months, we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has
come roaring back and housing has begun to rise”. When talking about education
problem, he had given some facts and statistics that are “We've got a program called
Race to the Top that has prompted reforms in 46 states around the country,…. I want to
hire another hundred thousand new math and science teachers and create 2 million
more slots in our community colleges ….”, or “… Governor Romney's central
economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the extension of the Bush tax
cuts, so that's another $2 trillion, and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the
military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.” When talking about tax, he had shown
other facts and statistics like “my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of
families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times.”, or “for incomes over
$250,000 a year that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was
president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus and
created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.” or “97 percent of small businesses would
not see their income taxes go up” and so on.
Mitt Romney was even more positive in giving facts and statistics. For instance,

For example, when discussed about how to deal with tax code, how to make sure
that Americans are reducing spending in a responsible way, as well as how to have
enough revenue to make those investments, Obama had shown a fact with statistics
“Governor Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the
extension of the Bush tax cuts, so that's another $2 trillion, and $2 trillion in additional
military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.” By using this
valuable fact, the president had pointed out the difference between his and Mitt
Romney’s economic plan and the inadequacy of Romney’s plan. $5 trillion, $2 trillion
and $8 trillion are huge figures. They reflected that the central economic plan of Mitt
Romney is unsuitable and has made Americans doubt about the feasibility of this plan.
At the same time, it created a basic for questioning “How America pay for that, reduce
the deficit and make the investments that they need to make without dumping those
costs on the middle-class Americans.” With the specific facts and detailed figures,
Obama was successful in persuading people to believe him rather than Romney’s plan.
Facing to argument of Barack Obama, Mitt Romney critisized that the policies of
president affected to middle-income Americans. He had shown that:
Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This
is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing.
The same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president, electric rates are
up, food prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family.
After seeing these facts and statistics, many people would really believe how badly
the president’s policies affected to middle-income Americans because they were rather
persuasive and they could reflect the fact in some ways. However in order to prove that
16