Is rest a industry super fund

Grant Agreement N° 2006-2411 / 001 –001Project Number 228522-CP-1-2006-1-BE-MINERVA-MWebCEF ProjectWork Package 3: Transcultural Communication (23.5.2009)Partner 6, University of HelsinkiTranscultural CommunicationAdvanced Information—Communication Style and Cultural FeaturesReference:Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Tella, S. (2008). Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India.Teoksessa A. Kallioniemi (toim.), Uudistuva ja kehittyvä ainedidaktiikka. Ainedidaktinen symposiumi 8.2.2008 Helsingissä.Osa 2(ss. 783–796). [In A. Kallioniemi (Ed.), Renovat-ing and developing subject didactics. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 2, 2008. Part 2(pp. 783–796). University of Helsinki. Department of Ap-plied Sciences of Education.Research Report 299].http://www.seppotella.fi/nishimuranevgitella299.pdfCommunication Style and Cultural Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland, Japan and IndiaShoji Nishimura1, Anne Nevgi2and Seppo Tella31 Waseda University, Japan2Department of Education, University of Helsinki3Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of HelsinkiAbstractPeople from different countries communicate in ways that often lead to misunder-standings. Our argument, based on Hall’s theory of high/low context cultures (1959, 1966, 1976, 1983), is that these differences are related to different communication cultures. We argue that Japan and Finland belong to high context cultures, while In-dia is closer to a low context culture with certain high context cultural features. We contend that Finnish communication culture is changing towards a lower context cul-ture. Hall’s theory is complemented with Hofstede’s (2008) individualism vs. collectiv-ism dimension and with Lewis’s (1999, 2005) cultural categories of communication and Western vs. Eastern values. Examples of Finland, Japan and India are present-ed.Keywords: high/low context culture; communication style; culture; cultural features; individualism; collectivism; Finland, Japan; India.Aim of This ArticleIt is generally acknowledged that people from different countries tend to communi-cate in slightly different ways. We argue that these differences are more related to different communication cultures than other differences. Being aware of these differ-ences usually leads to better comprehension, fewer misunderstandings and to mutu-al respect. Our aim in this article is to describe, analyse and interpret communication style and certain cultural features in Finland, Japan and India.
2We base our arguments on Edward T. Hall’s concept (1959, 1966, 1976, 1983) of high context (HC) and low context (LC) cultures. This concept has proved valid and useful in transcultural studies (Kim, Pan, & Park, 1998). We also refer to Lewis’s (1999, 2005) cultural categories of communication and Western vs. Eastern values, and to Hofstede’s (2008) collectivism–individualism dimension. As far as we know, no previous study has discussed these three countries together from the aforemen-tioned perspectives.This article hopes to contribute to foreign language education, transcultural commu-nication, transcultural studies and multiculturalism. CultureHall (1959) defines culture as the way of life of a people: the sum of their learned be-haviour patterns, attitudes and materials things. Culture is often subconscious; an in-visible control mechanism operating in our thoughts (Hall, 1983). In his view, we be-come aware of it by exposure to a different culture. Members of a certain society in-ternalise the cultural components of that society and act within the limits as set out by what is ‘culturally acceptable’(Hall, 1983, p. 230). Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) theory aims to explain cultural differences through certain dimensions, such as power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity vs. femininity. Of these, we use the individualism vs. col-lectivism dimension. This dimension is defined by Hofstede (2008)as “the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side, we find socie-ties in which the ties between individuals are loose ... On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families ...”. ContextContext is defined as the information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of that event: “The cultures of the world can be compared on a scale from high to low context” (Hall & Hall, 1990, p. 6). High vs. Low Context CulturesHall (1976) suggested the categorisation of cultures into high context versus low con-text cultures in order to understand their basic differences in communication style and culturalissues. Communication style refers to ways of expressing oneself, to communication patterns that are understood to be ‘typical’ of, say, Finns or Japanese people. Cultural issues mean certain societal factors, such as the country’s status, history, religion and traditions. Cultural issues also include Hofstede’s (2008) individ-ualism vs. collectivism dimension. Communication style in a high vs. low context cultureIn HC cultures, communication style is influenced by the closeness of human rela-tionships, well-structured social hierarchy, and strong behavioural norms (Kim et al., 1998, p. 512). In a high context (HC) culture, internal meaning is usually embedded deep in the information, so not everything is explicitly stated in writing or when spo-ken. In anHC culture, the listener is expected to be able to read “between the lines”, to understand the unsaid, thanks to his or her background knowledge. Hall (1976, p.