Analyzing High and Low Context Communication

High and Low Context Communication In low and high context cultures, the style of communication is regulated by the proximity of bonding between societal members, powerful behavioral norms, and degree of social hierarchy structuring. In high context communication, the information is typically embedded with internal meaning; hence, everything is not articulated in speech or writing clearly. The recipient of information is supposed to look for implied meaning in the message communicated, and grasp the unsaid part of the message, using their background knowledge.

Hall (1976, 91), emphasizes such percept stating that high-context messages/communication are characterized by a majority of information being internalized in whichever individual receives the message or being present in the physical form of the communication -- the coded, transmitted, or clearly-stated message components contain very little information.

Research objective This paper's aim is critically analyzing low/high context communication taking place between an individual whose native tongue is not English (i.e., speaks the language as L2) and a police official (Native English speaker); it intends to ascertain the challenges posed by cultural inconsistencies or differences. Statement of the problem A number of things remain unarticulated in a scenario of high context communication; for instance, the context of the message gets filled with the individual's grasp of their culture.

It is reasonable to presume that a majority of police officers employ this communication style within their circles. However, use of such style poses difficulties and communication issues arise between individuals whose first language is not English and police officers (Holliday, Hyde and Kullman, 2010). 3. Discussion Culture plays a major role in the context of communication. Communication defines an individual's behavior while exchanging information. For communicating, one needs to translate meaning into some behavior.

That is, the sender of the message needs to transform his/her feelings, views, or information into gestures, words, or facial expressions for the recipient of the message to comprehend its meaning fully. Following encoding of the meaning into behavior, a decoding process takes place at the receiving end, for retranslating the sender's behavior into meaning. Therefore, communication invariably depends on how one perceives, interprets, and evaluates another's behavior, a process known as encoding and decoding of a message (Adler 1997, p.68).

The process relies heavily on an individual's cultural background that decides the meanings he/she attaches to specific behavior and words (Adler 1997, p.69). Often, cross-cultural communication is rife with misunderstandings, which arise for the following three reasons: i. Misperception It was explained that patterns of perception are inconsistent and governed by one's culture (Adler 1997, p.72). That is, cultural background influence meanings perceived by an individual, also, such perceptions do not necessarily reflect real understandings, indicating that one's perceptions are highly vulnerable to misunderstandings based on culture. ii.

Misinterpretation Misinterpretation is another reason behind intercultural misunderstandings. Adler (1997, p. 74) states that interpretation happens when people ascribe meaning to their observations, or, it represents the (previously-mentioned) "decoding process." Adler (1997, p. 78) asserts that one's interpretation is guided strongly by one's culture, through a fine illustration: a businessman from the U.S. meets a client from Austria for no less than the 6th sixth time, within a span of 6 months. Predictably, the latter addresses the former as "Herr Johnson." Mr.

Johnson feels his Austrian client dislikes or distrusts him, as North Americans are typically more informal, if they desire to forge a stronger bond. Mr. Johnson has, in fact, "misinterpreted" the formal norm of Austrians, practiced by his client. This example aids one in understanding one among the many reasons behind intercultural misunderstanding. iii. Misevaluation Adler (1997, p. 87) states that evaluation denotes a process of assessing if something is bad or good. Normally, individuals use their respective cultures as the base for deciding.

For instance, in the aforementioned American-Austrian example, an Austrian will inadvertently be inclined to favor his country's formal norm, instead of USA's informal norm. 4. Training as a solution The CCAI or Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory was created from a comprehensive literature review of cross-cultural adaptability. A complex list was made comprising of all skills and attributes linked to the ability of adapting to the cultures of others.

Specialists in cross-cultural coaching subsequently rated all skills or attributes on this list, indicating those they felt were most significant in order to be able to adapt to the cultures of other people. Four sets of skills were, repeatedly given the highest rating by experts, thus forming the base for the ensuing comprehensive statistical analysis, which generated four refined sets of skills employed in CCAI.

Effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting is linked to success, competence, and certain skills like cultural empathy, a non-critical attitude, the ability of forging and maintaining relationships, and the ability of handling psychological stress (Holliday et al., 2010; Varnum, Grossman, Kitayama & Nisbett, 2010). CCAI represents a.