Content uploaded by Kyoung-Ah Nam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kyoung-Ah Nam on Aug 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
High-Context and Low-Context Communication 377
This work mirrored the increased attention to inter-
cultural communication due to the rapid globaliza-
tion of business and its consequent influence, as a
context for both research and application, on the
intercultural communication field itself. Under-
standing Cultural Differences is the study of intercul-
tural communication among German, French, and
U.S. American businesspeople. What is particularly
notable, and a source of some pride for the authors,
was that they wrote (in English) three different ver-
sions of the book, one for readers in the United States
and separate versions for German and French read-
ers, the latter two books to be translated into German
and French. This treatment of material appears to be
unique, as well as consistent with Hall’s outlook on
intercultural communication.
Hall’s Impact on Intercultural
Communication
Among the greatest contributions of Hall’s work is
his introduction of new terms—many of which
have been mentioned in this entry—that have
become part of the vocabulary of those who write
or speak of intercultural communication, including
many who have never heard of E. T. Hall. Just as
few people know the name William Graham
Sumner but readily use his coinages, including
ingroup , outgroup , a nd ethnocentrism , Hall’s
vocabulary and the concepts represented in those
terms may endure longer and be diffused more
widely than any of his many publications.
Hall was a prolific writer, and his writings
included specialized work within the field of
anthropology meant primarily for his fellow
anthropologists. In The Hidden Dimension, he
initiated an empirical study that he imagined
might be pursued through continued close exami-
nation of proxemic behavior that could follow
the systemic model of linguistics, an approach he
did not pursue in his other work. In all of his
writing, and teaching, he sought to share his
insights not only with academic specialists but
also with the general public. This is reflected in
his writing style, in the choice of words, including
his original lexicon, and sometimes in the use of
abbreviations (e.g., m-time for monochronic ). His
sources, too, are broad, far beyond the confines of
a single academic discipline, as he viewed such
distinctions as cultural constructions and not as
mirrors of reality. In many respects, Hall mod-
eled what would come to be called intercultural
communication competence .
John Condon
See also Body Language (Haptics); Eye Contact
(Oculesics); Facial Expressions/Universal; High-
Context and Low-Context Communication;
Intercultural Nonverbal Communication; Intercultural
Verbal Communication Styles; Space (Proxemics);
Time (Chronemics)
Further Readings
Condon, J. (in press). It goes without saying:
Communication, culture, and the radical vision of
E. T. Hall .
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language . New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1962). The hidden dimension . New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture . Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life . New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1992). An anthropology of everyday life .
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. L. (1990). Notes in the history of
intercultural communication: The Foreign Service
Institute and the Mandate for Intercultural Training.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 262–281.
HIGH-CONTEXT AND LOW-CONTEXT
COMMUNICATION
The ways individuals communicate with one
another reflect their own cultural background and
context. In some cultures, people tend to convey
messages explicitly and directly; verbal and written
words are the primary way to deliver a message. In
these cultures, it is the speaker’s responsibility to
deliver a clear message to the listener. In other cul-
tures, including many in Asia, Africa, Latin America,
and the Middle East, messages are delivered
through more indirect and nonverbal means. Key
information is conveyed via context. It is the
listener’s responsibility to understand the meaning
by reading between the lines.
Copyright © 2015 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution.
378 High-Context and Low-Context Communication
The terms low-context communication (LCC)
and high-context communication (HCC) come
from the anthropologist E. T. Hall, who used
them to describe the way in which human com-
munication styles differ. According to Hall, in
LCC, meaning is expressed through explicit ver-
bal messages, both written and oral. In HCC, on
the other hand, intention or meaning can best be
conveyed through implicit contexts, including
gestures, social customs, silence, nuance, or tone
of voice. In low-context cultures, what (content)
is said is of primary importance, whereas in high-
context cultures, how the message is delivered
often matters more.
This entry provides an introduction to LCC
versus HCC styles and how they affect the interac-
tions and understanding between people.
Core Elements
How would an individual approach a friend to get
the friend’s help in moving house? The two conver-
sations below demonstrate how people from low-
context and high-context cultures communicate
differently.
Low-Context Example
Klaus: Hey, I’m finally moving to my new
apartment. I need to start packing.
Bob: Wonderful! When are you moving?
Klaus: This Sunday. I have so many things to
move. Could you come and help?
Bob: Sure! My church service ends around
noon, so I would be happy to help
afterward.
Klaus: Thanks!
High-Context Example
Eujin: Well, I am finally moving to my new
apartment. You will be invited to the
housewarming party!
Suo: How wonderful! When are you moving?
Eujin: This Sunday. I need to start packing.
[I hope Suo can help me. ]
Suo: Do you need help? I would be happy to
help! [ I know Eujin needs help , but she
will not ask me unless I offer. ]
Eujin: Really? I hate to trouble you. . . . You
have church on Sunday. . . . [ I am so glad
Suo is offering to help. ]
Suo: No worries. It ends at noon, so I can
come afterward.
Eujin: Oh . . . are you sure? If you insist. . . .
Thanks so much!
Suo: My pleasure!
If Klaus and Bob’s direct and get-to-the point
communication style is preferred, one would
most likely feel more comfortable with LCC. In
contrast, people who normally practice HCC
feel more comfortable with Eujin and Suo’s indi-
rect communication style. In HCC, people com-
municate meaning in a more circular manner so
as not to sound overly demanding and expect
the listener to understand the message that is
being communicated so they don’t have to be
specific. If Eujin (from the second example
above) were communicating with Bob (from the
first example), Bob might not necessarily catch
the hidden request from Eujin. Instead, Bob
would expect a straightforward request from her
if she needed help. In HCC, Eujin’s preferred
communication style, the request or refusal is
implied through context. If Bob did not recog-
nize Eujin’s intention and therefore did not offer
help, Eujin would likely ask someone else rather
than overtly state her request. Her intention
would be to preserve a harmonious interaction
and to save Bob’s face in case he is not available
to help.
Patterns of direct verbal assertiveness, linear
logic, straightforwardness, and transparent mes-
sages are characteristic of LCC. Often generated
from individualistic cultures, in which shared
assumptions are not taken for granted, LCC
values saying what you mean and meaning what
you say.
HCC, more common in collectivistic cultures,
relies on communication patterns of indirect non-
verbal cues, spiral logic, a self-humbling tone,
and silence. HCC emphasizes the cultural norm
“Don’t say anything that may result in losing face
or hurting the other’s feelings.” The speaker’s
intentions, wants, and needs are expressed in a
diplomatic and softer tone to maintain harmony
in the relationship. Very little is explicit in the
transmitted part of the message; instead, the
Copyright © 2015 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution.
High-Context and Low-Context Communication 379
receiver is expected to read between the lines and
infer meaning from the nonverbal subtleties
accompanying the verbal message.
Nonverbal communication involves the use of
nonlinguistic cues (eye contact, smiles, touch,
silence) and paralinguistic cues (tone of voice,
pitch, volume) expressed through communica-
tion channels such as facial expressions, body
movements, hand gestures, and spatial relation-
ships. “Hear one and understand ten” is a com-
mon proverb in Japan and Korea, reflecting the
high-context cultural values in those societies. A
specific word that refers to a form of HCC even
exists in the Korean language: 눈치 ( Nunchi ).
Nunchi , the ability to read someone’s mind or read
between the lines, is one of the most important
competencies to communicate effectively in Korean
society, because you are expected to understand
others’ unspoken agendas and real intentions
through nonverbal cues.
Key Characteristics
Table 1 illustrates the key characteristics of LCC
and HCC.
When discussing high- and low-context cul-
tures, it is important not to oversimplify and to
keep the relative nature of cultural context in
Table 1 Low-Context/High-Context Communication
Low-Context Communication High-Context Communication
Most of the information is in the verbal message
(spoken words, written notes, memos, legal documents,
etc.) and less in the context
Less information is in the verbal message and more in
the context; nonverbal communication (eye contact,
facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, color of the
envelope, etc.) matters more
Direct message:
“Get to the point”
“I mean what I say, and I say what I mean”
“Don’t beat around the bush”
“Cut to the chase”
“Give me the bottom line”
Important to read between the lines and consider the
rank, age, gender, and class of the communicator
“Hear one and understand ten”
“Silence is golden”
What (content) is said is more important; how is
secondary
How the message is delivered is more important; what
(content) is secondary
“Yes” means yes; “no” means no “Yes” could mean yes, maybe, or no; words can mean
different things depending on the context
It is okay to say “No” Saying “No” is often avoided to preserve harmony and
save face; instead, apologetic expressions or an indirect
signal are given:
“It will be difficult” (meaning “no”)
“We will get back to you”
“Let me think about it”
Silence
Linear writing style; topic sentence and key message
often come at the beginning of the paragraph
Circular writing style; topic sentence and key message
often come at the end of the paragraph
Task oriented Building relationships is primary
Conflicts can be resolved relatively quickly Conflict avoidance; frequent use of third parties to
resolve problems; therefore, conflict resolution takes
more time
Copyright © 2015 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution.
380 High-Context and Low-Context Communication
mind. There are considerable variations within
low er - and high er context cultures. One could
use a direct, LCC style when discussing one mat-
ter (e.g., business) but prefer an indirect, HCC
style when discussing other matters (e.g., social
relationships). Furthermore, individual differ-
ences and contextual situations should be consid-
ered. For example, while northern European
cultures are usually considered lower context
than Arab or Latin American cultures, it does not
mean that every person in that culture adheres to
that norm. For instance, one cannot assume that
a Swedish person will necessarily use a lower
context communication style than a Mexican
person.
LCC and HCC in Day-to-Day Practice
Business Agreements
LCC and HCC play a key role in cross-cultural
business relationships. While written contracts and
signed agreements are considered essential in LCC,
less legal paperwork is conducted in traditional
HCC because people are expected to honor verbal
agreements. Requesting a written contract with a
signature could even be perceived as a sign of dis-
respect in HCC and, therefore, may damage the
relationship.
Yes and No
One of the most challenging and confusing
experiences for individuals from LCC cultures
when working with HCC counterparts is under-
standing the meaning of yes and the various ways
of saying no . For example, when a person’s
Japanese counterpart keeps nodding and saying
“Yes” in response to a statement, it may not be a
sign of agreement but a sign of acknowledgment.
In this context, yes means “Yes, I am listening,” not
“Yes, I agree.”
An even greater challenge is in understanding
the subtle ways of saying no . While it is okay to
say no in LCC, direct confrontation is avoided in
HCC. Loss of face in HCC means disrupting
group harmony and bringing shame. It is a serious
infraction. Therefore, an indirect refusal is used,
such as saying “We will think about it,” “It might
be a little difficult,” or “We will do our best,” or
simply responding with silence.
Use of Silence
Whereas silence is an important communication
device in many high-context cultures, people from
low-context cultures often feel uncomfortable with
silence. In HCC, knowing when not to talk in a par-
ticular cultural situation can be even more important
than knowing when to talk. Silence is sometimes
used as a way of indicating no , sometimes as a signal
of listening attentively and showing respect, and
sometimes as a way of expressing agreement.
In a recent joint venture, the U.S. American meet-
ing coordinator was frustrated because he did not
hear back from any of his Korean team members
confirming their attendance for a conference call.
He thought they weren’t available to attend and
informed his U.S. team that the meeting would be
rescheduled. The next day, all the Korean team
members attended and were surprised that none of
the U.S. team was present. When the U.S. coordina-
tor asked them what had happened, they replied,
“We would have responded if we couldn’t attend.
We didn’t say anything because we, of course, were
planning to attend the meeting.” This kind of e-mail
silence often causes misunderstandings between
people accustomed to LCC and those used to HCC.
Writing-Style Differences
Between LCC and HCC
Even written communication can be different
between individuals using LCC and those using
HCC. When students from high(er)-context cul-
tures study abroad in low(er)-context cultures,
they are often perplexed by the feedback they
receive about their writing. For example, they are
often told, “You need to move the last sentence of
the paragraph to the beginning.” This makes little
sense to students from high-context cultures, who
think, “How could I dare to put the topic sentence
first and state my point without providing detailed
background beforehand?”
In high-context cultures, good writing starts with
an extensive background on the subject matter,
often using storytelling or metaphor. It is the reader’s
job to connect all the circular and subtle signals
Copyright © 2015 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution.
Higher Education Intercultural Campus 381
from this background to the topic sentence, which
often comes at the end of the last paragraph. In
low-context cultures, however, the topic sentence
generally comes first in the paragraph, followed by
supporting arguments in linear order. This logic
also applies to the structure of presentations and
the way people write e-mail messages.
When people rely on their own internalized cul-
tural scripts and fail to take contextual differences
into account, miscommunication is inevitable.
Understanding the differences between LCC and
HCC and being able to flexibly shift between them
are fundamental building blocks in the development
of intercultural competence.
Kyoung-Ah Nam
See also Hall, E. T.; Intercultural Nonverbal Communication;
Intercultural Verbal Communication Styles
Further Readings
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY:
Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (2010). Intercultural
communication in contexts. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. (2012). Understanding
intercultural communication. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
HIGHER EDUCATION INTERCULTURAL
CAMPUS
The intercultural campus is a setting where people
from diverse backgrounds are encouraged to learn,
teach, and serve so as to create an environment in
which all can live, work, and grow to their highest
potential. The overall concept seems deceptively
simple, but in practice it is complex. In the sections
that follow, this entry describes an intercultural
campus in terms of five key structural elements.
The Center: The Mission and the Vision
At the center of the campus are its vision (also referred
to as its mission or goal) and overall learning objec-
tives (campuswide as well as programmatic). In this
increasingly interconnected world, people are more
interdependent than ever before, while simultaneously
engaging across difference more frequently and in
deeper, more complex ways. These forces cause people
to share resources for a common good while respect-
fully engaging difference in order to be effective. This
global transformation requires that campuses create a
new, more inclusive learning space. In response, cam-
puses across the United States have adopted mission
statements stating that their graduates are global
ready or global citizens . With these types of visions
and goals in place, campus leaders are called to culti-
vate the intercultural campus and initiate the process
of integrating its culture throughout the campus expe-
rience. The mission statement is often issued before
the campus has fully launched and integrated a plan
for an intercultural campus. The launch of such an
initiative could start in many divisions of the campus,
and the following section elaborates on how higher
education professionals can locate or cultivate the
intercultural campus in their institution.
Focusing on the campus vision and mission
statements, diversity professionals have learned
that their work can become marginalized if it is
deemed to be an add-on or something to be
addressed only after the central work of the orga-
nization has been accomplished. By ensuring that
addressing culture is seen as essential to the overall
vision and mission of the campus, the foundation
of a truly intercultural campus is laid. The overall
concept is often referred to as from the margins to
the middle , and it brings the intercultural vision to
the center of the educational enterprise.
Access and Success
A focus on access and success helps to ensure that
all participants can engage fully in the campus’s
educational endeavors. Sometimes, a campus prefers
to focus on the perspective of either the students or
the faculty. Most campuses, however, recognize that
it is essential to include all constituencies in the com-
munity, including not only faculty and students but
also administrators, staff, and the board of trustees.
The Learners
The learners often are the impetus of the inter-
cultural campus. Campuses have several competing
Copyright © 2015 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution.