No. 1: 7-33. Kecskes, I. 2015. Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics. Vol.
|
|
Essentially, the more knowledge people have, the more consensus is observed among them. Unfortunately, the Cultural Consensus Theory does not help others to better understand intracultural variability or how cultural knowledge is interrelated at a cognitive level. Cultural Consensus Theory anticipates intracultural variation but views variation as analogous to performance on a cultural test, with certain individuals functioning as better guides than others to the cultural information pool (Garro, 2000).
|
|
However, researchers have more recently argued that these intercultural differences are no more diverse than the intracultural differences found in diverse societies, such as the United States. One argument suggests that “in general, cross-cultural discussions of attachment theory and findings have proposed that there are large cross- cultural differences compared with intracultural differences; however, no empirical studies have addressed this issue.”van Ijzendoorn, M., H. & Kroonenberg, P., M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta- analysis of the strange situation.
|
|
I thought it was interesting that there was not a Wikipedia page discussing this concept. It is very important to compare and contrast intercultural communication to understand the similarities and differences. With little research conducted on intracultural communication, I am unable to correlate the two types of communication. The last concept to expand on is identity.
|
|
Intercultural communication is based on a much greater scheme of things. This type of communication refers to a group of people that differ in backgrounds, whether that is religion, ethnic, education, or social backgrounds. Intercultural communication looks at how the world is viewed, how messages are interpreted, and how differing cultures react to situations [Communication ]. On the contrary, intracultural communication discusses how people of the same background interact with one another.
|
|
Identity management theory (also frequently referred to as IMT) is an intercultural communication theory from the 1990s. It was developed by William R. Cupach and Tadasu Todd Imahori on the basis of Erving Goffman's Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior (1967). Cupach and Imahori distinguish between intercultural communication (speakers from different cultures) and intracultural communication (speakers sharing the same culture). To understand IMT, it is important to be familiar with Cupach and Imahori's view of identities.
|
|
Intracultural miscommunication draws on the fact that all humans subconsciously reflect their cultural backgrounds in day to day communication. Culture does not just lie in the way one eats or dresses, but in the manner in which people present themselves as an entity to the outside world. Language is a huge proponent of communication, as well as a large representation of one's cultural background. Cultural miscommunication often stems from different and conflicting styles of speech and messages.
|
|
The risk of changing self-image in a social context will alter how the individual feels about oneself. The author was implying that oftentimes the defense mechanism is to retract from showing your self to much in a social setting so others do not see them in a displeasing way. The idea of the identity management theory uses the ideas of Goffman to help establish what the idea behind the theory is trying to get at. Intercultural verse intracultural communication varies significantly.
|
|
Many academics have critiqued that many cultures use politeness strategies differently than how Brown and Levinson theorized. Many sociologists criticize that politeness theory is heavily based on Western cultures where individualism is highly valued compared to many non-Western cultures where group identity is valued over the individual. Some of this intracultural difference is, in part, due to diverse "knowledge and values" within a particular society, but Brown and Levinson argue that their theory is universal. Although everyone has face wants, there are different ways strategies they use to accomplish these wants or mitigate face threats based on their culture.
|
|
Despite these marriages being classified as "Chinese-foreign marriages", the above data suggests that they are intracultural, rather than, international in nature. In his article The rise of international marriage and divorce in contemporary Korea, Professor Doo-Sub Kim (2010) gives weight to this observation by highlighting the surge in cross-border marriages registered in South Korea between Chinese and South Korean nationals. Between 1990 and 2005, there was an increase of over 35,000 cross-border marriages registered in South Korea, with China becoming the main sending country for such marriages by the mid-1990s. According to the Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea, the majority of these marriages are between Korean men and Han Chinese women.
|
|
According to Pieter Willem van der Horst, there is an instance of antisemitic statements in one of the Pauline epistles; David Luckensmeyer maintains that it was not written with the intent to condemn all Jews, Paul's letters reveal someone who lived his life within Judaism, but did at the same time have an antisemitic effect.David Luckensmeyer. pp.167-171. F. F. Bruce called it an 'indiscriminate anti-Jewish polemic' mirroring Graeco-Roman pagan attitudes to the Jews. Gene Green, Ernest Best, T. Holtz, Amy Downey variously argue that it resonates with Old Testament themes, plays on Jewish fears of being the "privileged people of God" and typical of an argumentative style shared by Greeks and Jews alike and thus, in Downey's words, exemplifying an intracultural clash between Paul the Jew and Jewish leaders opposing the propagation of Gospel ideas in both Judea and Thessalonia.
|
|