Informal verbal interaction is the core matrix for human social life. A mechanism for coordinating this basic mode of interaction is a system of turn-taking that regulates who is to speak and when. Yet relatively little is known about how this system varies across cultures. The anthropological literature reports significant cultural differences in the timing of turn-taking in ordinary conversation. We test these claims and show that in fact there are striking universals in the underlying pattern of response latency in conversation. Using a worldwide sample of 10 languages drawn from traditional indigenous communities to major world languages, we show that all of the languages tested provide clear evidence for a general avoidance of overlapping talk and a minimization of silence between conversational turns. In addition, all of the languages show the same factors explaining within-language variation in speed of response. We do, however, find differences across the languages in the average gap between turns, within a range of 250 ms from the cross-language mean. We believe that a natural sensitivity to these tempo differences leads to a subjective perception of dramatic or even fundamental differences as offered in ethnographic reports of conversational style. Our empirical evidence suggests robust human universals in this domain, where local variations are quantitative only, pointing to a single shared infrastructure for language use with likely ethological foundations.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/26/10587.full.pdf

Universals and cultural variation in turn taking in conversation

In psychological research on cultural differences, the distinction between individualism and collectivism has received the lion's share of attention as a fundamental dimension of cultural variation In recent years, however, these constructs have been criticized as being ill-defined and "a catchall" to represent all forms of cultural differences The authors argue that there is a conceptual confusion about the meaning of ingroups that constitute the target of collectivism Collectives are rarely referred to in existing measures to assess collectivism Instead, networks of interpersonal relationships dominate the operational definition of "ingroups" in these measures Results from a content analysis of existing scales support this observation To clarify and expand the individualism-collectivism distinction, a theoretical framework is proposed that draws on M B Brewer and G Gardner's (1996) conceptualization of individual, relational, and collective selves and their manifestation in self-representations, beliefs, and values Analyses of data from past studies provide preliminary support for this conceptual model The authors propose that this new theoretical framework will contribute conceptual clarity to interpretation of past research on individualism and collectivism and guide future research on these important constructs

https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/legacy/pdfs/Brewer_Chen_2007.pdf

Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism.

Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory

Taking Stock in Our Progress on Individualism-Collectivism: 100 Years of Solidarity and Community

PART I. FOUNDATIONS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION Chapter 1. Why Study Intercultural Communication? Chapter 2. The History of the Study of Intercultural Communication Chapter 3. Culture, Communication, Context, and Power Chapter 4. History and Intercultural Communication PART II. INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION PROCESSES Chapter 5. Identity and Intercultural Communication Chapter 6. Language and Intercultural Communication Chapter 7. Nonverbal Codes and Cultural Space PART III. INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION APPLICATIONS Chapter 8. Understanding Intercultural Transitions Chapter 9. Popular Culture and Intercultural Communication Chapter 10. Culture, Communication, and Intercultural Relationships Chapter 11. Culture, Communication, and Conflict Chapter 12. Striving for Engaged and Effective Intercultural Communication

Intercultural Communication in Contexts

This innovative book contains studies of personal relationships from a variety of non-western cultures, and leaves behind the western biases that are typical of most research and theorizing done in this expanding area. Chapters focus on personal communication practices in countries including Iran, Brazil, Mexico, China, Japan and Korea. The editors cover the major theories that explain communication across cultures through both emic and etic approaches, by examining how members of a culture understand their own communication, and by comparing specific aspects of communication across cultures. They also suggest areas for future research.

Communication in personal relationships across cultures

Introduction Cultural Similarities and Differences Between the United States and Japan Language Usage in the United States and Japan Communication Patterns in the United States and Japan Expectations for Japanese-North American Communication Effective Japanese-North American Communication

司西田

Papers

Communication in personal relationships across cultures

Bridging Japanese/North American Differences

Readings in intercultural communication

司 西田

Papers

Communication in personal relationships across cultures

Bridging Japanese/North American Differences

Readings in intercultural communication

司西田