Page 28 - Silence in Intercultural Communication

Chapter 2. A review of silence in intercultural communication 15

of a pressure in their culture where articulate verbal performance “is considered to
be one of the most important measures for success and positive image” (p. 56).
In terms of attitudes, there have been a number of suggestions that Western-
ers prefer talk to silence (Enninger 1987; Giles et al. 1991; Jaworski 1993; Scollon
1985). Argyle (1972) says, “In Western cultures, social interaction should be filled
with speech, not silence” (p. 107–108). On the other hand, it has been frequently
argued that more positive values are attached to silence in the East (e.g. Enninger
1987; Giles et al. 1991; Scollon & Scollon 1995). Giles et al. (1991) made an at-
tempt to empirically test this “typical Western bias” (Jaworski 1993: 46), and their
results confirmed the “bias”, with the Anglo-Americans viewing talk more posi-
tively than the Chinese Americans and the non-American Chinese. As expected,
the non-American Chinese group saw silence more positively and the Chinese-
American group came in the middle in their valuation of silence and talk. Giles
et al. (1991) also note that Hong Kong students viewed small talk more positively
than students in Beijing, and there is also a generational gap in beliefs about talk
and silence, which along with Tannen’s (1985) findings warns us to be cautious
about the stereotypes surrounding silence and talk.
With regard to cultural differences in silence in the literature discussed above,
it is worth noting how prevalent the comparison between ‘Western’ and ‘non-
Western’ cultures is. Here, what groups the ‘Western cultures’ cover is ambigu-
ous. The use of the general label ‘Western’ is so prevalent that it seems to con-
tribute to and reinforce the stereotyping of voluble or silent racial groups, which
is problematic. Moreover, immediate contextual factors and participants’ social
identities other than their ethnic one may not be sufficiently considered. Silence
can be created when comparisons between communicative styles of distinct com-
munities are made by the participants. When this happens, cultural stereotypes
are also reinforced, and perceptions of marked silences or unexpected volubility
themselves can bring further silence or dominance of one group. Scollon & Scol-
lon (2001), referring to Bateson (1972), describe this type of amplification process
of problems in intercultural communication as “complementary schismogenesis”
(p. 294). Sifianou (1997), drawing on Tannen (1993a), states:
[...] silence in itself is not necessarily a sign of powerlessness, just as volubility in
itself is not necessarily a sign of domination. It is the interaction of the two which
attributes meaning to each form of behaviour. (Sifianou 1997: 68)