By Lailawati Mohd Salleh, Ohio University
Abstract
Globalization and workforce mobilization have prompted many scholars and searchers to conduct intercultural studies. In studies on eastern intercultural communication, research focus has been on the Japanese and Chinese cultures. However, there are other eastern cultures which are less known to the intercultural scholars. Therefore, the author of this paper hopes to introduce a group of individuals who seldom appear in western literature and probably unknown to many scholars – the Malays. Using Edward T. Hall‘s characteristics of high-low context communication, this essay illustrates the Malaysian Malay style of communication.
Introduction
When you enter a cow‘s barn, moo, and when you enter a goat‘s shed, bleat. (A Malay proverb, translated).
The above is a traditional Malay proverb depicting advice by a mother to her daughter when the daughter was about to marry and move out to stay with her in-laws. The mother typically says very little about what she thinks her daughter should do to adapt to the new family, but the implicit meanings behind her advice were bits of wisdom for her daughter to interpret. A similar experience befalls a woman from another culture who was to marry a Malay man. This woman would need a considerable amount of time to learn and understand the new family as well as the even greater task of adapting to the culture of the man she marries.
Culture plays a big role in the development of human thoughts and behaviors. Ignoring cultural differences in an interaction can potentially signal trouble. Numerous articles have been written on cultural differences, their implications, and the ways of dealing with them. One example of an intercultural difference is illustrated by gift-giving. In the article titled, “Wrong gifts may tick off potential trading partners,” Philippidis (1999) reminds readers about the consequences of a lack of understanding a trading partner‘s cultural taboos. For example, presenting a clock as a gift to a Chinese is as though wishing the receiver a short life (Philippidis, 1999), but to a Malay, receiving this gift is a gesture of friendship and thoughtfulness. Another instance of the Malay culture is the use of the left hand. If someone uses the left hand to point or give something to another person, it shows disrespect for the other person. Companies that overlook the salience of intercultural communication differences might face potential relationship problems. This phenomenon can jeopardize long term ties for businesses if companies are less sensitive to cultural differences. Due to the impact on businesses and social relationships, much research focuses on understanding and explicating intercultural communication differences.
In terms of research done on intercultural communication, a dearth of literature exists in work conducted in Malaysia. In the Asian region, studies on intercultural communication mainly focus on Japanese and Chinese cultures but very few can be found on other cultures such as those in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. This paper therefore aims to add information about a group of people who live in the eastern part of the world, the Malays, to the existing body of intercultural communication literature. This will be done by explicating the high and low context communication depicting the cultural dimensions advanced by Edward T. Hall. The concepts of cultural context in this essay are derived from the book Beyond Culture (Hall, 1976) and are used to exemplify communication in the Malay culture.
The first part of the essay is an overview of the high and low context cultures as defined by Hall followed by the characteristics of a high-context communication. Then I will explicate several illustrations of high-context communication as seen in a Malay culture and finally close the essay with a summary and suggestions on studying the Malaysian culture.
High-context and Low-context Communication
Hall (1976) claims that those of European heritage believe that what they think is real because they live in a “word world” (p.vii), and anything other than words are considered less important in the communication process. This, to Hall, is a mistake. Words do not convey every meaning in a message. There are underlying subtleties that provide the wholeness, or context, to a “spoken message.” Along the same lines, Hall (1998) adds that “high context communication or message is one in which most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low-context communication is just the opposite, that is, the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code” (p. 61). An illustration of a high-context communication as described by Hall (1976) is in his puzzling experience of staying in a hotel in Japan. Hall found himself moved from one place to another, “like a piece of derelict luggage” (p.61), but was not told the reason for the move. As someone who sees himself to be from a low- context culture, Hall was upset for not understanding why he was treated in such a way. Finally, the answer came. In Japan, when a person joins a corporation, that person has to “belong” to the corporation; otherwise he or she will have no identity. So now that Hall is in this hotel, the hotel was socializing him and was taking care of him. What is interesting here is that a person need not be told explicitly (low-context) about what is being done to him or her but that person would have to follow the crowd to understand what is going on to be able to be part of the group (a high-context communication style).
In addition to the implicit meaning buried in a behavior, Hall (1976) noted that meaning and context are inextricably bound with each other. He stated that “China, the possessor of a great complex culture, is on the high-context end of the scale. One notices this particularly in the written language of China, which is thirty-five hundred years old and has changed very little in the past three thousand years” (p. 91). This shows that meaning is embedded in the context in which the communication occurs and rarely in the written communication. To illustrate this point, for someone to be literate in Chinese, one has to be conversant with Chinese history and to know the pronunciation of the words to understand the four tones which carry a different meaning for each tone. Knowing the context of a message conveys the meaning intended. Understanding both words and context gives the full picture.
Importance of Context
Edward T. Hall (1976) highlights the importance of context in culture. Hall claims that although the communication field gives context a considerable amount of attention, context has not been sufficiently explained. To make his point, Hall illustrates how understanding context makes a significant difference in the meaning of a particular problem. In one incident, the U.S. government spent millions of dollars to develop a system which can translate foreign languages into English. Unfortunately the effort was unsuccessful. Rather than having a machine translate languages, the government realized that the translator should be a human and not a machine. Humans take into consideration factors such as paralinguistic and intonations when translating language, which gives a different meaning to a message rather than its literal meaning. Hall concludes that the failure occurred because the message was not taken in context and that understanding the linguistic code is only part of the message and not complete by itself.
Characteristics of High-context and Low-context Communication
High-context and low-context communication can be differentiated based on four characteristics: emotions in a close relationship, directness of message conveyed, use of nonverbal communication, and use of digital or analogous language.
First, high-context communication involves emotions and close relationships while low-context interactions use the logical part of the brain and are less personal (Hall, 1998). For example, a typical Malay tradition is to serve beverages and local cakes when guests visit their homes. Malays like their guests to feel comfortable and welcomed when the guests pay them a visit, so the way to do this is to provide a hospitable atmosphere. This practice is brought into their organizational business meetings during which business partners are typically served refreshments and light snacks during meetings. To the Malays building relationships comes before getting down to business. In one observation, Abdullah (1996) notes that, “Malays tend to engage in social pleasantries before getting down to business. They see it as a form of ‘ice-breaker‘ which can smoothen [sic] the flow of conversation and enable both parties to assess one another” (p. 79). On the other hand, Westerners are more direct and explicit (Abdullah, 1996) and would like to put the cards on the table and get down to the business.
In most Western negotiations, rationality is favored over emotionality. Individuals are encouraged to negotiate using the principled negotiation approach (Rothwell, 2004), where negotiators remain unconditionally constructive throughout the process. This technique outlines a set of rules that focus on content with an emphasis on results that are based on objective standards. Unlike soft bargaining which value building relationships and friendships (Rothwell, 2004), principled negotiation can be categorized as low-context communication.
The second high-context communication characteristic is indirectness. According to Hall (1976) a high-context individual would talk around things expecting the interlocutor to understand the cues. The speaker provides part of the message and leaves the remaining pieces to be filled by the listener. For example a friend says that he is hungry but could not leave his work to buy food. For a low- context person this means that the friend will be hungry until he finishes work, but a high-context person may get the signal that his friend would like him to get food for him. Saying this directly might appear demanding, so by talking around what he wants, the listener might be able to pick up the cues. In this case Hall (1976) notes that in-group members in high-context cultures are expected to know what is troubling a group member. Details are not specified but considered to be known by the other person placing the burden of understanding and responding to the problem on the interlocutor.
In contrast, North Americans are perceived to be assertive as compared to the Japanese who are perceived as to “love indirect and ambiguous modes of persuasion” (Niikura, 1999, p. 48). According to Niikura, this perception, in part, is due to Japanese culture being seen to have “deep respect for the other” and to be direct when expressing negative feelings implies impoliteness. However, Niikura claims that the Japanese when compelled to express disagreement will do it indirectly (for example later after the meeting or in another room).
Another example of indirectness in high-context culture is demonstrated in a study by Leets (2003), who investigated perceptions of non-Whites (Asian, African, or Hispanic American) on racist speeches by a White (European American). The author discovered that Asian Americans were more sensitive to the indirect racist speech (notably the communication context) as compared to European Americans, who evaluated the direct meaning in the speech and were not disturbed by the indirect slurs. Leets‘s study affirms that one‘s cultural context provides the basis for the interpretation of messages conveyed.
The next characteristic in high-context culture is that individuals learn to understand others through nonverbal responses. Kitayama and Ishii (2002) assert that information in the verbal content of East Asian language is relatively low so nonverbal cues and contexts provide the missing link in the communication process. For example, in Malay culture, a child who interrupts elders who are speaking is seen as behaving rudely. One way a parent “informs” a child that the behavior is inappropriate is to shake the head or maybe look at the child long enough so that the child notices that the parent is watching him or her. The child then gets the message and will refrain from further interrupting the parents‘ conversation. To a low-context person, the parent‘s behavior merely signifies that the parent is just listening to the child speaking.
In a nonverbal communication study conducted by Dsilva and Whyte (1998) on Vietnamese refugees‘ conflict style, the authors found that the Vietnamese refugees made no response to a negative statement conveyed by an alderman. Even though angered by the lack of concern of the alderman for their loss of face, the Vietnamese chose to remain silent to avoid conflict. For someone to understand the message behind the silence, one has to “read” the nonverbal cues of the Vietnamese. The nonverbal behavior (silence) is a gesture to show respect and to maintain harmony. The authors postulate that high-context communication draws its understanding of human behavior and thoughts through nonverbal communication which thus makes comprehension intuitive. Alternately, low-context communication relies on verbal communication to enable someone to understand the messages.
In response to the observation made by Dsilva and Whyte, Ramsey (1998) asserts that silence should not be perceived as negative. “It is critical that silence be not interpreted as absence of thought. It may mean time to formulate an opinion, a gathering of courage to speak in another language, providing time to allow a senior to speak first or is the form of a generally less confrontative, softer way to convey disagreement” (p.120).
Finally, language can be digital or analogous. In defining these terms, Bennett (1998) explains, “Verbal language is digital, in the sense that words symbolize categories of phenomena in the same arbitrary way that on/off codes symbolize numbers in operation in a computer. Non-verbal language by contrast is analogous – it represents phenomena by creating contexts which can be experienced directly” (p. 17). To this end, Hall (1976) notes that “English is strongly digital … it provides speakers with many words to name particular affective and cognitive states” (p. 17) in contrast to the Japanese language, which is more analogous than digital. It demands that “its speakers imply and infer meaning from the context of relatively vague statements …” (p.17). This characteristic explains the reason for the many words in English to describe a particular situation, for instance, the varying degree of a state of emotion such as dislike (can mean despise, hate, disgust, loathe, and detest). In an analogous language, when a word is uttered, the receiver would have to figure out exactly what the speaker means by putting into a context the way the statement was said, who said it, when it was said, in which situation it was said, and other statements that were said before or after (Hall, 1998).
Anthropologists often live with the people they wish to study. Immersing oneself in the culture is a way to experience the embodiment and enactment of the unspoken values and beliefs of a particular culture. Geert Hofstede, a renowned cultural scholar, when asked about his involvement in culture said that “there is a difference between knowing and practicing” (Hoppe, 2004, p. 79) as “culture hides much more than it reveals” (Hall, 1998, p. 59). The hidden messages often times are unexpressed emotions or behaviors demonstrated in a form only understood by individuals in that culture. In both ways, “culture is saturated with both emotion and intelligence. … [and] a great part of human activity is either the direct result of conscious thought or suffused with emotion and feeling” (Hall, 1959, p. 81). In other words, as we learn to understand and get acquainted with someone from another culture, it is not only words that explain the action but also more the unspoken language.
In the attempt to understand culture, Hall (1976) suggests that we consider the amount of time and effort we should spend on “contexting” (p. 92). Too much “contexting” takes away our focus and time from the core tasks, but too little time spent understanding the context results in incomplete understanding. There needs to be a way to determine the optimum time and effort for contexting.
The Root ofCultural Context Divide
At least three possible reasons can account for what led to the divide into high-low context culture: perception of information ownership, basic economic structure, and religion or spirituality. Kitayama and Ishii (2002) observe that there is a difference in how ownership of information influences communication. The authors believe that low-context practices in North America stem from the belief that individuals are independent of each other and are “informationally insulated” while high-context cultures see themselves as interdependent and therefore “informationally connected”(p.53). When information is not shared, individuals are more likely to gather as much information as possible for themselves in order to feel secure and hence the strong dependence on verbal communication. On the other hand, when the sharing of information occurs, individuals do not need as much information because they know that they can rely on other members for the information.
Another possible reason that could have caused the divide in cultural context is the work individuals in preceding generations did for a living. Traditionally, social mobility and population density were dependent on the economic resources of the community. People whose economic lifestyle was based on hunting, gathering, and herding had to move from one place to another, so they were less likely to remain in one place for a long period of time. The nature of such a lifestyle hampered the sharing of information and the way individuals ensure that they had information necessary for survival was through the exchanges of explicit verbal messages. This low context communication was common in the historical development of European civilization (Hall, 1976). For those who had an agriculturally-based economy, social mobility was low resulting in a high population density. Here individuals could get together easily which made the sharing of knowledge convenient. This scenario is typical in many Asian civilizations where people share a long history together and thus are part of a culture that is more high-context than the Europeans (Hall, 1976).
Religion can be another factor which leads to different forms of cultural context. Even though there is a dearth of literature in this area, some studies have shown that religion plays a significant role in communication especially for Muslims (e.g. Abdullah, 1996). The word “patience” in the Qur‘an (Al Asr, verse 3) which reads, “Except those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and recommend one another to the truth and recommend one another to patience [italics added] …” (Al-Hilâlî & Khân, 1993, p. 967) can be interpreted in several ways. Patience here can mean abstain, forgive, endure, calm, persist, tolerate, bear and wait depending on the situation or context of the occurrence. For instance, if someone hit your friend‘s car, the first thing your friend might do is to dash to the person who hit his car and start a fiery argument. In this situation a Malay person would say to the friend to be patient which means “calm down” or if the argument persists the patiencemight now be interpreted as “hold on and please tone down the argument.” So for the Malays (who are generally Muslims), their communication cultural root is partly shaped by the religion they embrace. In the workplace, high-context cultural practices seem more prevalent among Malaysian [Malay] managers where religion forms the basis of workplace behavior and treatment (Storz, 1999).
Impact of Cultural Context on Managerial Practices
In consultancy services, low-context consultants generally formulate strategies based on the information they gather from surveys and company documents. These consultants often overlook information not found in documents or verbal messages such as people‘s background, experience, and knowledge (Hall, 1976), which, in many cases, serve as useful supplementary information. Hidden messages in a company history can be found in the artifacts, organizational culture, and background of the organization. When conducting consultancy jobs, omitting the aforementioned organizational sources can result in poor evaluation of the organization and possibly a failure in the intended change initiative.
One such occurrence happened in a large government organization. This department was working to achieve the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification for the past two years but with little success. ISO auditors noted that policies and procedures were well-documented, but the problem was that it lacked compliance. In a high-context culture, change should occur in both the organizational structure and procedures and employee attitudes and behavior. People come from different backgrounds, and this needs to be addressed. In this context, Hall (1976) adds, “High-context actions are by definition rooted in the past, slow to change and highly stable” (p. 93).
Cultural context can have significant implications on negotiation processes and outcomes (Graham, Mintu & Rodgers, 1994; Parnell & Kedia, 1996). Studies show that negotiations resulting in deadlock were generally due to a lack of understanding of the bargaining partner‘s cultural background. To understand a culture‘s negotiation styles, Osman-Gani and Tan (2002) studied three major ethnic groups in Singapore: Malays, Chinese, and Indians- and discovered that these three groups employed different negotiation styles. The authors reported that, in general, Malays are non-confrontational and choose to avoid hurting relationships. In terms of negotiation style, Malays are intuitive in that they are “warm and animated when making statements, flexible and creative during negotiations, fluid and able to adapt to changing subject and situation” (p. 824). To a person from a low-context culture, these mannerisms are difficult to understand and therefore unable to control in the negotiation process. In essence, to avoid miscommunication we need to learn, understand, and accommodate cultural differences, particularly during the process of communication.
Contextualizing Malaysia
Malaysia is a multi-racial country, which is comprised of Malays, Chinese, Indians and others. Although a large segment of the cultural dimensions of these three large races are similar, there are differences in terms of degree and priorities of values. For instance, the Malays ranked honesty as first on their list of values, the Chinese placed courtesy as number one, and the Indians, family (Fontaine, Richardson, & Yeap, 2002). However, non-Malaysians who conducted research on cross- cultural management tended to overlook this phenomenon and presented their findings about Malaysians as though Malaysians were a homogenous group (Fontaine & Richardson, 2003). In their observation Fontaine, Richardson and Yeap (2002) state that “Malaysian Malays and Malaysian Chinese share some similar values but, Hofstede treats all Malaysian culturally similar” (p. 63). In order to make clear that Malaysian culture is basically made up of three main races - the Malay, Chinese, and Indians (and smaller groups like the Dayaks and Ibans) - it would have been ideal to discuss the groups separately. But due to space constraints the following discussion focuses only on one group - the Malaysian Malay.
The Malaysian Malay Way of Communication
The Malays are individuals who make up a majority of the population in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines, with a lesser number in Singapore in what was once called the Malay archipelago. Many Malays are Muslims except for those in the Philippines who are mostly Christians (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2005). Some Malays are also found in Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Hainan, and South Africa. To avoid generalization of Malay communication for all Malay communities in the different geographical regions, the Malays in this essay are specifically Malaysian Malays. In the discussion that follows, Hall‘s characteristics of high-context culture are employed to provide illustrations of Malaysian Malays‘ communication cultural context.
In making a request, Malays are generally indirect. It would appear impolite to make a request outright, so Malays talk around what they intend to convey in the hope that their message is understood. “During meetings, it is not proper to come straight to the point. …Don‘t get too excited over a ‘yes‘ or a ‘no‘” (Culture briefings, 2001, p. 12). One way a Malay generally expresses his or her gratitude when the boss has done a favor is to give a gift or to invite the boss to dinner. What appears to be important is to maintain the relationship.
Indirectness can be also be observed in a social setting, like in a marriage. When a man has the intention to marry, the man‘s parents would make the proposal to the woman‘s parents. In some cases, the woman does not even know about the proposal until the man‘s parents come to the woman‘s house. In traditional Malay custom, the proposal is conveyed in poetic verses and rhymes to express their intention to have the girl‘s hand in marriage for their son. A typical verse commonly used is, “It has come to our knowledge that you have a beautiful flower in your garden. Would it be possible for us to pluck the flower for our son? Has anyone owned that flower?” If the receiving party accepts the proposal, then the wedding would be arranged. However, modern Malays today forego the subtleties of a traditional Malay proposal done in poems. The couples choose to decide between them if they want to get married and then leave the formalities of the proposal and wedding arrangement to the parents.
When a Malay woman experiences menopause, in most cases no one knows about it. The woman sees it as unnecessary to expose her private life changes and, in fact, feels that her womanly dignity is eroded if she talks about her “body.” The contrary occurs in Western countries where women are encouraged to discuss the biological changes that occur in their body so that they can share and inform others of their experience. In North America, studies on menopause are considered public knowledge intended to educate women on the natural womanly phenomenon and what to expect when it occurs (Breheny & Stephens, 2003). Breheny and Stephen‘s study conforms to observations made by cross-cultural theorists that low-context individuals need information about things that happen around them, but the high-context culture relies on feeling and sensing. The high-context versus low-context communication differences in cultural values strongly suggest a need to explore the underlying factors related to the differences in values between the two styles of cultural communication.
Not much information can be gathered from just speaking with a Malay. A lot of hidden messages are intertwined in the nonverbal communication and background of a Malay. One personal experience is about my sister who once related to me about how upset she was with her daughter and the communication that occurred from then on. It had been a routine that they rode together to work every morning in a car driven by her daughter, but because she was upset, my sister rode with her husband instead. My sister did not say anything about not riding in the car with her daughter, but because her daughter understood her mother‘s behavior (and communication style) the daughter made various attempts to coax her mother into riding in the car with her again. Very little exchange of conversation occurred to express her emotions towards her daughter, but her daughter could read the implicit messages that her mother conveyed.
Hall (1998) describes a high-context individual as someone who engages feelings in a relationship. This reminds me of my encounter with a Malaysian student, Anuwar, who was flying back to Malaysia on Malaysian Airlines (MAS). MAS air tickets are generally more expensive than some other airlines, and so I was curious to know why Anuwar had chosen MAS when he could have purchased a lower-priced ticket. Anuwar answered, “I feel like I‘m at home when I travel with MAS. The environment is familiar.” I, too, feel the same emotional attachment flying on Malaysian Airlines because there is warmth and hospitality, just like home – Anuwar did not have to say more, I understood his emotions.
In negotiation, the Malays‘ compromising and obliging conflict-handling styles (Wafa & Tee, 1997) are probably manifestations of their collective nature (Abdullah, 1996; Tamam, Hassan, & Said, 1996) who prioritizes group over personal interests. In compromising and obliging styles, negotiators are more concerned with maintaining relationship and safeguarding their partner‘s feeling, hence the seemingly perceived “weak styles” in goal-oriented negotiation. To the Malays, even though achieving their negotiation goals is important, their values in preserving harmony and respect for elders (Abdullah, 1992) take precedence in the negotiation process.
One other characteristic found in the Malay culture is that Malay language is more analogous than digital. A word like “give” has twelve meanings in the English language (Random House Roget‘s Thesaurus, 2001) but the Malay language has only one literal meaning which is beri. In Kamus Inggeris Melayu Dewan: An English-Malay dictionary (1992), give may mean present, provide, accord, donate, hand over, allow to have, pay in exchange, hold (e.g. a party), offer, sacrifice, and cause to feel. For example, if a Malay speaker says “to give an opinion,” an English speaker would say “offer an opinion”; or a Malay says “to give a project assignment,” an English speaker would “assign a project.” In the Malay language, the word beri is used both to mean offer and assign.
Contemporary Malaysian Malay cultural communication
Malaysian Malay culture now, as I perceive, is going through a cultural-context form of communication change where once a high-context, collectivist community is gradually becoming more low-context and individualistic. In the workplace, administrative policies and procedures have been made more explicit than before where the once “go ask your boss what to do” practice is disappearing and replaced by “check with the organizational procedure manual.” Working as a team though encouraged, seldom bears collective effort due to individuals striving to get better personal performance appraisal. Interactions seem to be more direct in order to achieve goals rather than to build relationships while objectivity has replaced subjectivity. Rationality is preferred over emotionality.
In social interactions, Malay communication has become more low-context. Previously, if a wedding were to be held in the “afternoon”, guests can come anytime after 12 p.m. (or even late in the evening). Now the reception time is fixed so if someone arrives late, there may not be any more food left to serve. In traditional Malay culture, a wedding is held in the bride and bridegroom‘s house where the community helps with the serving, cooking, and cleaning. The community helped without being asked but now this scenario has changed. Modern Malays would rather have their weddings in restaurants or hotels because people are busy. Invitations to weddings were once through word-of-mouth but now cards are distributed to specify the time and location of the wedding reception. Only invited individuals attend the reception.
This changing phenomenon, I believe, is a result of global mobilization. As people travel to other countries, they pick up new ways of seeing and doing things and incorporate them into their value system. Although tricky in the beginning to adjust and adapt to others‘ culture, the longer a person lives in a culture different from his or her own, the more time he or she becomes accustomed to the new culture. The Malays, too, are no exception.
Conclusion
A high or low context culture is portrayed through communication. The differences lie in the use of either a digital or an analogous language, verbal or nonverbal behaviors, emotional expressions and relationship-building, and directness or indirectness when communicating. Individuals from a high- context culture would particularly emphasize another‘s feeling in the communication process and so care to be less direct, use more analogous language, be more personal, and prefer nonverbal to verbal communication.
In order to understand a person and the culture that person comes from, one has to look around, past and inside that person. There are deeply embedded values and thoughts which have molded and shaped a person‘s behavior. Words alone cannot tell. In this respect Hall (1976) remarks that in cross cultural communication there are “two things [that] get in the way of understanding: the linearity of language and the deep biases and built-in binders that every culture provides” (p.61).
The observation Hall makes regarding high-low context communication seem appropriate and in line with the Malay culture. Malays are often indirect in expressing their views and opinion which are embedded in the nonverbal behaviors as an attempt to secure a close relationship with the other party. While doing so, emotions play a key role in ensuring that face value for both sides is preserved. For the fact that Malays tend to use fewer words in their interaction, the Malay language is more analogous than digital. A single word can be used in many different contexts. For instance, “patience” has one meaning in the Malay language, which is sabar, but has twenty-six synonyms in English (Random House Roget‘s Thesaurus, 2001). It is not that sabar has one meaning in Malay language but the meaning lies within the context of the word used.
What seems problematic in the study of high-low context in intercultural communication literature is the presumption that many Asian countries such as Malaysia, Japan, and China have a dominant culture. Even though this might be true for Japan and China which are racially homogeneous, researchers tend to overlook the fact that Malaysia comprises three dominant races that practice their own cultural heritage. Other than culturally heterogeneous, there exists an additional “new culture” as a result of the mixing and the blending of the three cultures. What is then interesting is for researchers to discover the characteristics of this “new culture.”
As a final word, this paper has introduced a rarely researched group of people, the Malays through explicating the way they communicate. Even though education and socialization have changed some of the practices of a traditional Malay culture, I believe that many of the values, beliefs, and practices are still intact which identifies them as a high-context culture.
References
Abdullah, A. (1992). The influence of ethnic values on Malaysian managerial practices. Malaysian Management Review, 27(1), 3-18.
Abdullah, A. (1996). Going glocal: Cultural dimensions in Mala sian Management. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysian Institute of Management.
Al-Hilâlî, M.T. & Khân, M.M. (1993). The Noble Qur‘an in the English Language (Trans.) (pp.966-967). Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Makataba Dar-us-Salam.
Bennett, M.J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp.1-34). Maine: Intercultural Press Inc.
Breheny, M. & Stephens, C. (2003). Healthy living and keeping busy: A discourse analysis of mid-aged women‘s attributions for menopausal experience. Journal ofLanguage and Social Ps cholog , 22(2), 169-189.
Cultural briefings: Mala sia (2003, November 6). Retrieved from http://www.culturebriefings.com /Pages/ CBpages/cbmy.html
Dsilva, M.U. & Whyte, L.O. (1998). Cultural differences in conflict styles: Vietnamese refugees and established residents. The HowardJournal ofCommunications, 9, 57-68.
Fontaine, R. & Richardson, S. (2003). Cross-cultural research in Malaysia. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(2), 75-89.
Fontaine, R.; Richardson, S. & Yeap, P. F. (2002). The tropical fish problem revisited: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(4), 60-70.
Graham, J., Mintu, A., & Rodgers, W. (1994). Exploration of negotiation behaviors in ten cultures using a model development in the United States. Management Science, 40(1), 72-95.
Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language. NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Be ond Culture. NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. (1998). The power of hidden differences. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp.53-67). Maine: Intercultural Press Inc.
Hoppe, M. H., (2004). An interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 75-79.
Kamus Inggeris/Mela u Dewan: An English-Malay dictionar (1992). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Kitayama, S. & Ishii, K. (2002). Word and voice: Spontaneous attention to emotional utterances in two languages. Cognition and Emotion, 16(1), 29-59.
Leets, L. (2003). Disentangling perceptions of subtle racist speech: A cultural perspective. Journal of Language and Social Ps cholog , 22(2), 145-168.
Niikura, R.(1999). The psychological process underlying Japanese assertive behavior: Comparison o fJapanese with Americans, Malaysians and Filipinos. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 23(1), 47-76.
Parnell, J. & Kedia, B. (1996). The impact of natural culture on negotiating behavior across borders. International Journal of Value-based Management, 9(1), 45-61.
Parnell, J. & Kedia, B. (1996). The impact of natural culture on negotiating behavior across borders. International Journal Value-based Management, 9(1), 45-61.
Philippidis, A. (1999). Wrong gifts may tick off potential trading partners. Westchester Count Business Journal, 38(41), 6.
Osman-Gani, A.A. & Tan, J.S. (2002). Influence of culture on negotiation styles of Asian managers : An empirical study of major cultural/ethnic groups in Singapore. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(6), 819-839.
Ramsey, S. J. (1998). Interactions between North Americans and Japanese: Considerations of communication style. In M. J. Bennett (ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication. Maine: Intercultural Press, pp.111-130.
Random House Roget‘s thesaurus (4th ed.). (2001). New York: Ballantine Books.
Rothwell, J.D. (2004). In mixed compan : Communicating in small grou s and teams. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Storz, M.L. (1999). Malay and Chinese values underlying the Malaysian business culture. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 23(1), 117-131.
Tamam, E., Hassan, M.D., & Said, M.Y. (1996). Are Malay middle-level executives more collectivistic than individualistic? Mala sian Management Review, 31(4), 50-56.
Tamam, E., Hassan, M.D., & Said, M.Y. (1996). Are Malay middle-level executives more collectivistic than individualistic? Mala sian Management Review, 31(4), 50-56.
Wafa, S. A., Tee, L.I. (1997). Malaysian managers: A study of their personality traits and conflict-handling behaviour. Malaysian Management Review, 32(3), 42-54.
Wikipedia: A free enc clopedia (2005, June 29). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Phillipines
__________
Source: www.businesscommunication.org
