VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THANH HUỆ

A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL
STUDY ON HAPTICS IN COMMUNICATION

NGHIÊN CỨU LIÊN VĂN HÓA VIỆT-ÚC VỀ CÁC HÀNH VI ĐỘNG
CHẠM TRONG GIAO TIẾP

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 60.22.02.01 Hanoi-2013

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THANH HUỆ

A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL
STUDY ON HAPTICS IN COMMUNICATION

NGHIÊN CỨU LIÊN VĂN HÓA VIỆT-ÚC VỀ CÁC HÀNH VI ĐỘNG ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility
to make my thesis reach an end.
I would like to express my faithful gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Huynh
Anh Tuan for his patient guidance, stimulating suggestions and encouragement
throughout my research.
I wish to thank all the staff members of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies,
University of Languages and International Studies, VNU for providing me the best
environment to fulfill my thesis.
Especially, my sincere thanks send to my friend Vu Thi Kim Huong, Vice
Director of Atlantic Company and Nguyen Thi Thu Ha, an oversea student in
Australia for their helping me to contact Australian informants.
I am greatly indebted to my friends for their assistance of collecting data and
conducting interview without which this study could not have been successful.
Last but not least, I would like to express my special thanks to my family
who offered me their love, care, support and encouragement so that I could
accomplish my study.

Hanoi, October 2013


DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT. iii

PART A. INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale…… 1
2. Aim and objectives of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Research questions 3
5. Methods of the study 3
6. Structure of the study 3

PART B. DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1.1.1. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication………5
1.1.1.1. Definitions of communication 5
1.1.1.2. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication 5
1.1.2.Nonverbal communication 6
1.1.2.1.Definitions of nonverbal communication 6
1.1.2.2.Classification of nonverbal behavior 8
1.1.2.3.Functions of nonverbal behavior 9
1.1.2.4.The importance of nonverbal behavior 10
1.1.3.Haptics in communication 11
1.1.3.1.Definitions of Haptics 12
1.1.3.2.Classification of Haptics 12
1.1.3.3.The role of Haptics in communication 14
v

1.1.3.4.Haptics culture: high-contact, low-contact, and medium-contactb

1.Summary 41
2.Suggestions for more effective intercultural communication 42
3.Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study 43

REFERENCES 44
APPENDIX I
1

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
“We should never denigrate any other culture but rather help people to
understand the relationship between their own culture and the dominant
culture. When you understand another culture or language, it does not mean
that you have to lose your own culture. ”
Edward T. Hall
In the wake of globalization, people of different nations nowadays become
closer and closer. The academic study of intercultural communication focuses on
the interactions between people from different cultures. Misunderstandings and
conflicts happen in various aspects of intercultural communication such as linguistic
differences, diverging stereotypes, social roles and belief systems. The intercultural
studies assume the responsibility of facilitating resolution to intercultural
communication problems. In fact, people often not only interact with each other by
words but also a range of touching behavior to express their intents. The
combination of verbal and nonverbal language in communication sometimes creates
culture shock and communication breakdown because every culture has its own
norms and customs and has a different way of communicating with its members.
Haptics-touching behavior is considered to play an important role in communication
because it can replace words to express speakers‟ feelings, greetings and opinions
and reduce cognitive burden for speakers. Moreover, haptics can help listeners


3. Scope of the study
This study discusses the topic of nonverbal communication. Extra-
linguistically, the study especially emphasizes on haptics communication in the two
cultures: Vietnamese and Australian.
3

4. Research questions
To satisfy the purpose of the study, two research questions, which are
suitable and applicable of viewing the norms of haptics in communication between
the Vietnamese and the Australian under the cultural perception, are raised.
Therefore, it is expected to seek answers to the following questions:
1. How do Vietnamese and Australian people practice their haptics in
communication?
2. What cultural values influence the norms of touching behavior of Vietnamese
and Australian people?

5. Method of the study
The study was carried by using observations and interviews as the tools to
collect the data from a sample of the Vietnamese and the Australian. Videos on
Youtube were used to observed how Vietnamese and Australian people practice
their touching behavior. The interviews with the Vietnamese and Australian
informants were conducted to understand more about their perceptions of haptics in
communication.
6. Structure of the study
This study consists of three parts: Introduction, Development and
Conclusion.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1.1. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication
1.1.1.1. Definitions of communication
To understand communication in its relation to intercultural communication,
Martin and Nakayama (2004) analyzed Carey (1989)‟s definition of
communication: “Communication may be understood as a “symbolic process
whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (p. 23)”. This
definition views communication as:
 Communication is symbolic: this means that we use symbols that carried
both verbal and nonverbal meanings to interact with each other. We often
assume that the other person shares the exact message we send, but in fact,
the communicated messages can be misunderstood due to the different
cultural backgrounds and experiences of the communicators.
 Communication is the process by which we negotiate meaning is dynamic: it
means that people are actively taken part in communication process. The
message of a communication is unstably sent and received, which relies on
the context in which communicators are creating, maintaining, repairing, or
transforming reality.
1.1.1.2. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication
It is very important to take consideration into the definitions of Cross-
Cultural Communication (CCC) and Intercultural Communication (ICC) as well as
the difference between these two concepts in this study. According to Scollon &
Scollon (2001), studies in CCC start from an assumption of distinct cultural groups
and investigate aspects of their communicative practices comparatively and studies
6

in ICC start from an assumption of cultural differences between distinct cultural
groups but study their communicative practices in interaction with each other. This

contact” (Levine & Adelman, 1993: 100). Those concepts do not mention to the
other elements that can determine and influence communication such as culture and
context. Therefore, many later scholars pay more attention to cultural context in
which people interact. Nguyen Quang (2008) emphasized the role of tangible
language and environmental (or contextual) language in nonverbal communication.
He views nonverbal communication as that is all elements which do not belong to
verbal code make out communication. It means that nonverbal communication is
not encoded by words, but it belongs to both vocal and non-vocal channels. Then
Samovar et al. also stated that nonverbal behavior “involves all those nonverbal
stimuli in a communication setting that are generated by both the source and his or
her use of the environment and that has potential message value for the source and
receiver” (Samovar et al, 2007: 197). According to Cruz (2001), nonverbal
communication was defined as “the nonlinguistic messages that are consciously or
unconsciously encoded and decoded through such means as facial expression, body
gestures (kinesics), space (proxemics), touch (haptics), eye contact (oculesics), time
(chronemics), tone (paralinguistics), and the environment in which people
communicate” (Cruz, 2001: 51). However, people taking part in communication
may come from the same or different cultures. They may share some cultural values
or not. It is important to have regard to nonverbal behavior in intercultural
communication. To share this view, Griffin (2009) stated that the process of
interpersonal communication is mutual and ongoing and both verbal and nonverbal
messages are used with another person to create and alter the images in both minds.
This definition is somehow in consistent with the dialectical thought of nonverbal
communication by Martin and Nakayama (2004). According to them, we need to
think dialectically about nonverbal element in intercultural communication, which
means that it is essential to place much attention to the relationship between the
nonverbal behavior and the social and cultural contexts in which the nonverbal
behavior accompanies with the verbal message.
8


parts. I like his classification because it counts all elements influencing
communication. His classification is presented in the following table: (Adapted from Nguyen Quang (2008), Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa: 82)
1.1.2.3. Functions of nonverbal communication
According to Samovar et al. (2007), “nonverbal communication is
multidimensional. This multidimensional aspect is revealed in the fact that
nonverbal communication often interacts with verbal messages. The interfacing of
Nonverbal Communication
Paralanguage
Extra-language
Body language/
Kinesics
Object language/
Artifacts
Environmental
language

Vocal
Characteristics:
+ Pitch
+ Volume
+Rate
+Vocal quality:
-Types of vocal
flow
- Vocal
interferences;
- Silence
10

the verbal with the nonverbal carries over the many uses and functions of nonverbal
behavior.” (Samovar et al., 2007: 198). They explained five functions of nonverbal
behavior as follows:
 Repeating: to repeat a point they are trying to make
 Complementing: to add more information to messages
 Substituting: to perform some actions instead of speaking
 Regulating: to regulate and manage your communication by using some form
of nonverbal behavior
 Contradicting: to send signals opposite from the literal meanings contained
in your verbal language
Nguyen Quang (2008) also shared a partly similar view to Samovar et al. (2007)
when emphasizing the interaction of verbal and nonverbal language. He mentioned
four functions of nonverbal behavior as:
 to complement and clarify meaning and shade of verbal language


1.1.3. Haptics Communication
Haptic, also called tactile or touching behavior is a type of nonverbal codes
which plays an important role in human interactions. For instance, during the early
years of childhood, a baby can feel his/her mom‟s warmth and caring through her
touches; you can place your hands on your friend‟s shoulders to express your
empathy or consolation when he/she is in troubles; or you can hug your child and
rub his/her back to comfort him/her. Which touches permissible will be determined
by our cultural norms and the relationship with our partners. Levels and meanings
of touches may vary from one to another. Therefore, taking consideration into
cultural differences in haptic norms is very crucial in intercultural communication.

12

1.1.3.1. Definitions of Haptics
Montagu (1971) suggested that “touch is perhaps the most primitive form of
communication” (quoted in De Vito, 2002: 146). Developmentally, touch is
probably the first sense to be used. A child, even in the womb, is stimulated by
touch. Then soon after birth, he/she is fondled and caressed by his/her mother‟s
touches. In turn, the child explores its world through touch and learns to
communicate a wide variety of meanings through touch in a short time as Camps
(2010) stated that “Even after a few hours mothers can identify their babies by
stroking the back of their hand.” (Camps, 2010: 1). Samovar et al. (2007) defined
that “Touch is the earliest sense to mature; it manifests itself in the final embryonic
stage and comes into its own long before eyes, ears, and the higher brain centers
begin to work” (Samovar et al., 2007: 213). Fujishin (2000) also made contribution
to the concept of haptics by claiming that “touching is the most intimate form of
nonverbal communication behavior. Touching behavior, or haptics, as it is called by
social scientists, includes all behaviors that involve the skin. Primarily, touching
behavior deals with our hands, and how we use them to communicate.” (Fujishin,

Touching behavior
Sub-types
Handshaking
+ The all-American + The bone crusher
+ The push-off/The stiff-arm thrust + The palm-down
thrust/ The topper
+ The pull-in/The arm-pull + The palm-up thrust
+ The finger-tip grab + The lingering
handshake
+ The palm pinch/The royal + The dead fish
+The two-handed shake/ The double-handed shake
+ The twister
+ The finger squeeze/The knuckle grinder
Bowing In terms of positions and motions of arms:
14

Hugging/Embracing
+ Neck hugging + Shoulder-Neck
hugging
+ Shoulder hugging +Upper-back
hugging
+Lower-back/Waist hugging
instance, both hands holding can replace a solace to your friend when his/her
15

relative passes away, or a sweet lip kissing for your spouse will express all the
loving words you want to say. De Vito (2002), based on Jones & Yarbrough
(1985)‟s view that was “touch can communicate a wide variety of messages”,
analyzed five major ones that will illustrate this great variety as follows:
• Touch communicates positive feelings for example, support, appreciation,
inclusion, sexual interest or intent, composure, immediacy, affection, trust,
similarity and quality, and informality (Jones & Yarbrough, 1985; Burgoon,
1991). Touch also stimulates self-disclosure (Rabinowitz, 1991).
• Touch often communicates your intention to play, either affectionately or
aggressively.
• Touch may control the behaviors, attitudes, or feelings of the other person.
To obtain compliance, for example, you touch the other person to
communicate “move over,” “hurry,” “stay here,” or “do it.” You might also
touch a person to gain his or her attention, as if to say “look at me” or “look
over here.” In some situations touching can even amount to a kind of
nonverbal dominance behavior.
• Ritualistic touching centers on greetings and departures; examples are
shaking hands to say “hello” or “good-bye,” hugging, kissing, or putting
your arm around another‟s shoulder when greeting or saying farewell.
• Task-related touching is associated with the performance of some function,
as when you remove a speck of dust from another person‟s coat, help
someone out of a car, or check someone‟s forehead for fever.

Touch is used to fulfill five communicative functions as: (1) ritualistic
interaction such as shaking hands and bowing; (2) expressing affect such as kissing
and kicking; (3) playfulness such as flirtatious stroking and poking; (4) a control
function such as grabbing someone‟s arm; and (5) a task- related function such as a

infirm.
17

 Touch as symbolism: The act of touch itself comes to represent the
significance of the relationship, ritual, or occasion.
(Knapp & Hall, 2010, 2007: 271-279)

From these views, it can be argued that interpersonal touch may not always
have positive and impact on communication. That is, if touch would be perceived
as dominant by the person being touched, this would likely influence the
cooperative interaction in a negative way. Therefore, touch must be carefully given
and received due to its multi-meanings across cultures.

1.1.3.4. Haptics culture: high-contact, low-contact, and medium-contact
cultures
The role of haptics is undeniable; however, it can be differently encoded and
decoded among cultures through the world. Therefore it is necessary for everyone
to pay attention to cultural differences when using haptic in communication. These
differences in touching behavior around the world have led to the idea of contact
and noncontact cultures. Hall (1966) and Montagu (1978) divided cultures into two
main types in terms of haptics perception: “contact” cultures are “where people
tend to interact at close distance and touch each other frequently” and “noncontact”
cultures are “where people tend to interact at close distance at greater distance and
avoid touching” (Nanda & Warms, 2011,2007: 111). Nanda & Warms (2011,
2007) classified contact cultures including of Middle East, Indian, the
Mediterranean, and Latin American; and noncontact cultures which are in Northern
Europe, Northern America, and Japan.
Toomey (1998) stated that “Different cultures have different expectations as
to who should touch whom in different interaction scene” (Toomey, 1998: 130). For
example, opposite-sex handshake is accepted by Chinese, but not by Malays and