The Origin of Intercultural Communication PDF

Title Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural communication : the United States and Japan Sub Title Author Ro...

Title Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural communication : the United States and Japan Sub Title Author Rogers, Everett M.(Miike, Yoshitaka) Hart, William B. 三池, 賢孝 Publisher Institute for Communications Research, Keio University Publication year 2002 Jtitle Keio communication review No.24 (2002. 3) ,p.3- 26 Abstract Here we trace the role of anthropologist Edward T. Hall in founding the scholarly field of intercultural communication during the 1951-1955 period when he was at the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of States. The scholarly field of intercultural communication was then mainly advanced by university-based scholars of communication in the United States and Japan, and in other countries. The development of intercultural communication in the U.S. and Japan is analyzed here. Notes Genre Journal Article URL http://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=AA0026 6091-20020300-0003 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 Edward T. Hall and The History of Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan by Everett M. ROGERS William B. HART Yoshitaka MIIKE Abstract Here we trace the role of anthropologist Edward T. Hall in founding the scholarly field of intercultural communication during the 1951-1955 period when he was at the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of States. The scholarly field of intercultural communication was then mainly advanced by university-based scholars of communication in the United States and Japan, and in other countries. The development of intercultural communication in the U.S. and Japan is analyzed here. The Founding Role of Edward T. Hall This essay explores (1) the development of the original paradigm for intercultural communication, and (2) how this paradigm was followed by scholars in the United States and in Japan. The term “intercultural communication” was used in Edward T. Hall’s (1959) influential book, The Silent Language, and Hall is generally acknowledged to be the founder of the field (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999). Hall was born in St. Louis, but grew up mainly in the American Southwest. As a young man in the 1930s, Hall worked for the U.S. Indian Service, building roads and dams with construction crews of Hopis and Navajos (Hall, 1992, 1994). He earned a Ph.D. in anthropology in 1942 at Columbia University, then one of the most important centers in anthropological study. During World War II Hall served as an officer with an African American regiment in Europe and in the Pacific (Hall, 1947). After the War, Hall returned to Columbia University for post-doctoral study in cultural anthropology (somewhat of a career shift from his previous specialty * Everett M. ROGERS is Regents’ Professor, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico. William B. HART is Assistant Professor, Department of Communication and Theatre Arts, Old Dominion University. Yoshitaka MIIKE is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico. 3  in archaeology), where he participated in a seminar with Abram Kardiner, Clyde Kluckhohn, Ruth Benedict, and others on the relationship of psychiatry and anthropology (Hall, 1992). Hall investigated the U.S. government’s post-World War II administration of the Pacific island of Truk (Hall, 1950). Then, while teaching at the University of Denver, Hall conducted a race relations study in Denver for the mayor’s office (Hall, 1992). After teaching at Bennington College in Vermont, with Erich Fromm, a Freudian psychoanalyst, Hall joined the Foreign Service Institute as a professor of anthropology in 1951. Table 1 details the major events in Edward Hall’s life and career. Table 1 Major Events in the Life and Career of Edward T. Hall. Date Events 1914 Born in Webster Groves, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis 1918-32 Grew up in New Mexico 1933-37 Worked on the Navajo and Hopi reservations in the U.S. Southwest 1936 Earned B.A. in Anthropology from the University of Denver 1938 Earned M.A. in Anthropology from the University of Arizona 1942 Earned Ph.D. in Anthropology from Columbia University 1942-45 Served in WWII, commanding an African American regiment in Europe and the Philippines 1946 Post-doctoral study in Sociology/Cultural Anthropology at Columbia University; conducted research on the U.S. military government administration of Truk 1946-48 Chairman, Department of Anthropology, University of Denver; studied race relations in Denver 1948-50 Taught at Bennington College in Vermont, with Erich Fromm 1950-55 Director of the Point IV Training Program at the Foreign Service Institute, Washington, D.C. 1952-56 Affiliated with the Washington School of Psychiatry, Washington, D.C. 1955 Publication of "The Anthropology of Manners" in the Scientific American 1959 Publication of The Silent Language 1960-63 Affiliated (again) with the Washington School of Psychiatry 1963-67 Professor of Anthropology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago; conducted NIMH- funded research on proxemics and interethnic encounters 1966 Publication of The Hidden Dimension 1967-77 Professor of Anthropology, Northwestern University, until his retirement in 1977; conducted further NIMH funded research on proxemics and interethnic encounters 1976 Participated in the Conference on Intercultural Communication, International Christian University, Tokyo 1976 Publication of Beyond Culture 1977 Presented a paper at the International Communication Association Conference, Berlin (Hall, 1978) 1977-Present Living in retirement in Santa Fe, New Mexico; Occasional lectures at SIETAR conferences and the Summer Institute of Intercultural Communication; teaching at the University of New Mexico (1997 and 1999). Source: Hall (1992, 1994), Hall's 1979 Curriculum Vitae in Box 6, Folder 5 of the E.T. Hall Papers, Special Collections, University of Arizona Library. 4  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 Scholarly Influences on Hall The original paradigm for intercultural communication took form in conceptualizations by Hall and others at the Foreign Service Institute in the early 1950s. What were the major intellectual influences on this conceptualization? Hall’s early life experiences as he grew up in the culturally diverse state of New Mexico, and commanded an African American regiment in World War II, were important influences. Hall says that from his work with the Hopi and Navajo he learned “firsthand about the details and complexities of one of the world’s most significant problems: Intercultural relations” (Hall, 1992, p.76). Hall’s personal experiences brought the problems of intercultural communication to his attention, but scholarly influences brought Hall to the investigation of intercultural communication. Hall’s graduate training in anthropology at Columbia University and his work as an applied anthropologist in the Foreign Service Institute brought him in contact with scholars who influenced his conceptualization of intercultural communication. Hall identified four major influences on his work: (1) cultural anthropology, (2) linguistics, (3) ethology, the study of animal behavior, and (4) Freudian psychoanalytic theory (Hall, 1992; Sorrells, 1998). 1. Cultural Anthropology: Cultural anthropology served as both a positive and negative influence on Hall’s formation of the paradigm for intercultural communication. At Columbia University Hall was particularly influenced by Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict (Hart, 1996b). In The Hidden Dimension, Hall acknowledged that the connection that he made between culture and communication in his noted book The Silent Language had its beginnings with Boas who “laid the foundation of the view...that communication constitutes the core of culture...” (Hall, 1966, p.1). The strong emphasis on cultural relativism by Boas and Benedict is evident in Hall’s work. Margaret Mead, who preceded Hall in helping the U.S. government apply anthropological understandings, and Raymond L. Birdwhistell, who was trained in cultural anthropology and who pioneered the study of kinesics, also influenced Hall. Hall did not accept certain important aspects of an anthropological perspective, however. Anthropologists generally focus on macro-level, single- culture studies, investigating the economic, government, kinship, and religious systems of a single culture. Hall’s approach at FSI focused on the micro-level behaviors of interactions between people of different cultures. This intercultural approach grew out of his applied work at FSI, where he taught a workshop course, Understanding Foreign People, to American diplomats (Murray, 1994). 2. Linguistics: At the FSI, Hall’s most influential colleague was George L. Trager, a linguist with post-doctoral training at Yale University with Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf from 1936 to 1941 (Carroll, 1940/1956; Hockett, 1993). Trager was perhaps closer to Whorf than any other scholar of his day; 5  they shared scholarly interests in Native American languages of the American Southwest, Hopi for Whorf and Tanoan for Trager (Hockett, 1993). Thus Hall was exposed to the concept of linguistic relativity, the process through which language influences human thought and meaning (Whorf, 1940/1956). Hall later said that what Whorf did for understanding the influence of language on human thinking, Hall himself did for human behavior through his study of nonverbal communication (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). 3. Ethology: Hall developed an interest in biology during his teenage years (Hall, 1992). This interest, particularly in animal behavior, is evidenced in his books The Hidden Dimension (concerning animal crowding and the handling of space) and Beyond Culture (regarding action chains). The “map of culture” in The Silent Language is rooted in biology. Hall’s classification of time (and culture) as formal, informal, and technical was based on Paul MacLean’s reptilian, limbic, and neo-cortex (triune) brain theory (Sorrells, 1998). 4. Freudian psychoanalytic theory: The unconscious level of communication was a strong influence on Hall and his colleagues at the Foreign Service Institute, especially their conception of nonverbal communication. We previously mentioned (1) Hall’s participation in the post-doctoral seminar on culture and personality, based on cultural anthropology and psychoanalytic theory, at Columbia University in 1946 (Hall, 1992), and (2) his intellectual friendship with Erich Fromm at Bennington College. While teaching at the FSI, Hall was closely involved with the Washington School of Psychiatry, which was organized and led by Harry Stack Sullivan, who played a major role in introducing Freudian psychoanalytic theory in the United States (Perry, 1982). Hall’s office was in the same building as the Washington School of Psychiatry (Hall, 1992, p. 241) and he “knew everyone in the building.” Hall’s wife, Mildred, was the chief administrative officer for the Washington School of Psychiatry, and Hall was on the School’s faculty (Hall, 1992). Hall invited psychiatrists like Frieda Fromm- Reichmann (Erich Fromm’s ex-wife) to his training sessions at the FSI, in order to interest them in intercultural communication (especially nonverbal communication), and, in return, to gain a deeper understanding of psychoanalytic theory. Hall spent seven years in psychoanalysis while living in Washington, D.C. (Hall, 1992). In The Silent Language, Hall (1959, pp. 59) stated: “One of the most dramatic and revolutionary of Freud’s achievements was his elaborate analysis of the role of the unconscious....After Freud it became common to think of ourselves as beings who existed on a number of different levels at once.” This “out-of- awareness” level of human communication (a terminology Hall [1959, p. 62] credited to Harry Stack Sullivan) was taught to his trainees at the Foreign Service Institute, and is reflected in the title of Hall’s (1959) book, The Silent Language. Here Hall (1959, pp. 59-60) stated: “Freud also relied heavily on the communicative significance of our acts rather than our words. Freud distrusted 6  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 the spoken word, and a good deal of his thinking was based on the assumption that words hid much more than they revealed.” Hall was not influenced in forming the paradigm for intercultural communication by Georg Simmel’s (1908, 1921) theory of the stranger nor by Charles Darwin’s (1872/1965) research on the nonverbal communication of facial expressions. Neither source is cited in any of Hall’s writings, although both are today considered important roots of intercultural communication (Gudykunst and Kim, 1984/1997; Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999; Rogers, 1999). Figure 1 diagrams the main intellectual influences on Hall’s conceptualiza- tion of intercultural communication, and the influences among those who influenced Hall. These main influences from cultural anthropology/linguistics and from Freudian psychoanalytic theory converged while Edward Hall was at the Foreign Service Institute. Figure 1 Intellectual Influences on Edward T. Hall's Paradigm of Intercultural Communication. 7  The Foreign Service Institute Leeds-Hurwitz (1990) stated: “The story of intercultural communication begins at the Foreign Service Institute.” Many concepts utilized today in the field of intercultural communication had been formulated in the decades prior to the intellectual heyday of the Foreign Service Institute from 1951 to 1955. Examples are Georg Simmel’s (1908 and 1921) concept of the stranger, William Graham Sumner’s (1946/1940) concept of ethnocentrism, and Benjamin Lee Whorf’s (1940) linguistic relativity theory. However, in 1951 the study of intercultural communication did not yet have a name, its conceptualization at the intersection of culture and communication had not yet occurred, and the study of nonverbal communication as a “silent language” component of intercultural communication had not been recognized. The field of intercultural communication was in a pre-paradigmatic era (Kuhn, 1962/1970) before 1950 (Rogers and Hart, 2001). What was the Foreign Service Institute, and how was the original paradigm for the scholarly field of intercultural communication formulated at FSI? The United States emerged from World War II as a major world power. However, the American diplomatic corps was not particularly effective. American diplomats seldom learned the language or the culture of the country to which they were assigned; for example, only 115 of 3,076 Foreign Service officers knew Japanese or Chinese (Anonymous, 1956). At the time that Lederer and Burdick (1958) wrote their highly critical book, The Ugly American, the U.S. ambassadors to France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia did not know the national language of the country in which they were posted. In contrast, 90 percent of all Russian diplomatic staff, including officials, secretaries, and chauffeurs, spoke the language of their country of assignment. As one U.S. Department of State administrator remarked: “Selecting, training, and promoting Foreign Service officers on the basis of foreign language skill is a little like picking chorus girls for moles and dimples. From the balcony it doesn’t matter” (Bradford, 1960, as cited in Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). In 1946, the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Service Act, which established the Foreign Service Institute in the U.S. Department of State to provide training throughout the careers of Foreign Service officers and other State Department personnel like American development workers. One function of the FSI was to teach language skills, a type of training that was carried out quite successfully. The FSI hired several of the key linguists who had been involved in the Army Language Program during World War II, which was designed with the help of the Modern Language Association. With the Army Language instructors came the strategy of using native speakers, and thus the importance of cultural understanding in the process of language instruction. The linguist George L. 8  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 Trager played a key role with Edward T. Hall in explicating the new field of intercultural communication at the FSI (Rogers & Hart, 2001). Culture and Communication Initially, Hall and the other anthropologists on the FSI staff taught their trainees about the concept of culture, and about the macro-level details of specific cultures such as their kinship structure and social institutions. The diplomats and development technicians studying at FSI were underwhelmed by this rather conventional anthropological approach. Hall (1959, p.32) noted: “There seemed to be no ‘practical’ value attached to either what the anthropologist did or what he made of his discoveries.” The trainees complained to Hall that what the anthropologists told them about working with the Navajo was of little value to them because the United States did not have an embassy on the Navajo Reservation (Hall, 1959). The FSI trainees insisted that they needed to understand how to communicate effectively with individuals who had a different culture than their own. Hall (1959) concluded: “By and large, it is useless to deal with culture on the meta level.” Hall began to meet every weekday afternoon with George Trager to discuss how to reconceptualize the anthropology curriculum at FSI (Hall, 1992; Sorrells, 1998), thus bringing together linguistic and anthropological perspectives into an intellectual convergence that eventually became known as intercultural communication. Out of their joint work, Hall and Trager (1953) wrote a Foreign Service Institute training manual, The Analysis of Culture, in which they created a 10 by 10 matrix for mapping a given culture along certain dimensions (this matrix is reproduced in Hall’s [1959, pp. 190-191] The Silent Language). Communication was one of the most important dimensions. The focus in the Hall/Trager collaboration was on communication across cultures. Hall concluded: “Culture is communication and communication is culture” (Hall, 1959, p. 186). Hall stressed the micro-level aspects of space and time as they affected what we today call nonverbal communication. Raymond L. Birdwhistell taught at the FSI in summer, 1952, and wrote an FSI manual on kinesics, or body movements (Birdwhistell, 1952). The analysis of nonverbal communication at FSI dealt particularly with out-of-awareness communication behavior, the unknowing and often uncontrolled dimension of interpersonal communication, and was influenced by the concept of the subconscious, drawn from Freudian psychoanalytic theory. The Foreign Service Institute trainees were highly receptive to the new paradigm of intercultural communication that Hall and Trager created. The basic course that Hall taught was a four-week orientation workshop for mid-career diplomats and technical assistance workers, some of whom were accompanied 9  by their spouse. About half of the course content was language instruction and the other half was intercultural communication. Hall trained 2,000 people at the FSI over a five-year period, mainly in batches of 30 to 35. The methods of training were highly participatory and experiential. Hall de-emphasized listening to lectures and reading books as a means of understanding intercultural communication. Hall gained useful classroom examples of intercultural communication from his trainees, many of whom already had extensive international experience. Further insights and teaching examples were obtained by Hall’s travels to visit his former trainees in their overseas assignments. Why did the “intellectual Camelot” for intercultural communication at FSI end in 1955? The Foreign Service Institute was embedded within the U.S. Department of State, with the purpose of training Foreign Service personnel. FSI was one part of a government bureaucracy, and the anthropologists and linguists teaching at FSI had difficulties in dealing with the rest of the U.S. State Department, which was suspicious of the enclave of academics at FSI. Hall (1992, p. 202) remembers that “My message was frequently misunderstood and actively resisted by most of the administrators as well as the members of the Foreign Service.” Eventually, the State Department decided to “clean out the anthropologists” from the Foreign Service Institute. With the departure of Hall and Trager, and others, the brief window of academic creativity that had flourished at the FSI from 1951 to 1955 closed. The intellectual center of intercultural communication moved elsewhere, eventually (a decade or so later) to university-based departments of communication. One of the most important means of disseminating the elements of the original paradigm for intercultural communication, worked out at the Foreign Service Institute, was via Hall’s (1959) important book, The Silent Language. Hall’s Paradigm for Intercultural Communication What were the main elements of the paradigm, defined as a conceptualization that provides exemplary problems and methods of research to a community of scholars (Kuhn, 1962/1970), for intercultural communication? 1. The FSI scholars focused on intercultural communication, rather than on macro-level monocultural study, which Hall originally (and unsuccessfully) taught the FSI trainees. Although intercultural communication had roots in anthropology and linguistics, it became quite different from either in the decades following 1955. 2. Nonverbal communication, defined (by Hall) as communication that does not involve the exchange of words. Hall, Trager, and Birdwhistell created the empirical study of various types of nonverbal communication (proxemics, chronemics, and kinesics), setting forth the leads that were followed up by later 10  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 generations of nonverbal communication scholars. 3. The emphasis, especially in nonverbal communication, was on the out- of-awareness level of information-exchange. Here Hall was influenced by Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, and Harry Stack Sullivan (Hall, 1992), and by Raymond Birdwhistell. 4. The approach to intercultural communication accepted cultural differences and was nonjudgemental, reflecting a perspective from anthropological research and training. Here, Hall followed in the footsteps of Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict in strongly supporting cultural relativism, the belief that a particular cultural element should only be judged in light of its context (Modell, 1983; Herskovits, 1973). 5. Participatory training methods were necessitated in part because intercultural communication was taught in all-day workshop sessions at the Foreign Service Institute to midcareer trainees who already had extensive experience in the field. Hall and his fellow trainers at the FSI used simulation games, exercises, and other participant-involving methods of experiential instruction. 6. Intercultural communication began as a highly applied type of training, intended to ameliorate the lack of skills of U.S. American diplomats and development technicians. These six main elements of the paradigm worked out at the Foreign Service Institute generally characterize the field of intercultural communication today as it is taught at U.S. universities (Gudykunst and Kim, 1984/1997), and to some degree in Japan. The Silent Language The Silent Language was the founding document of the new field of intercultural communication, although it was not written with this purpose in mind, nor was it even directed at an academic audience. The book was written for the general public, and became a major best-seller. It also had a profound influence on academic scholars. The editor of Scientific American corresponded with Hall in 1954, inviting him to write an article to be titled “The Anthropology of Manners,” based on what he was teaching at the Foreign Service Institute. Hall submitted this article, which was promptly published (Hall, 1955). In the most-quoted section of this article, Hall described the handling of space during conversations: “A U.S. male...stands 18 to 20 inches away when talking face to face to a man he does not know very well; talking to a woman under similar circumstances, he increases the distance about four inches. A distance of only 8 to 13 inches between males is considered...very aggressive. Yet in many parts of Latin America and the 11  Middle East, distances which are almost sexual in connotation are the only ones at which people can talk comfortably.” Hall (1955) concluded: “If you are a Latin American, talking to a North American at the distance he insists on maintaining is like trying to talk across a room.” Shortly after publication of Hall’s 1955 article, Clarkson Potter, Associate Editor at Doubleday, asked Hall to write a popular book in nontechnical language by expanding his Scientific American article. Hall proposed that the book be coauthored with George Trager, and a contract with Doubleday was signed. However, a year later, before much of the book manuscript was written, Trager withdrew as a coauthor when he left the Foreign Service Institute to accept a faculty appointment at the University of Buffalo. Potter played an important role in shaping the book, and completed editing The Silent Language as a labor of love after he resigned from Doubleday to become editor of another publishing company. Hall (1992, p. 256) stated: “I started writing my first real book, The Silent Language, one hour a day between five and six in the morning when no one could bother me.” The manuscript went through several revisions, and through several titles, from The Analysis of Culture, to Culture: The New Frontier, and finally to The Silent Language. The Silent Language contained key chapters on “What Is Culture?” “Culture Is Communication,” “Time Talks,” and “Space Speaks.” The book placed a heavy emphasis on nonverbal communication, with at least 20 percent of the content given to this topic. An important appeal of The Silent Language to its readers was its illumination of previously hidden dimensions of human communication, particularly proxemics (how space affects communication) and chronemics (how time affects communication). Examples from a wide range of cultures were included in the book, drawn from Hall’s work experiences with the Hopis and Navajos in the 1930s, his evaluation of development programs on the island of Truk in 1946, and, especially, the intercultural communication experiences of his FSI trainees. Impacts of The Silent Language The Silent Language impacted the public, the scholarly community of intellectuals and social scientists, and Edward Hall’s career. The Silent Language was an impressively popular book, with 505,000 copies sold during the period from 1961 to 1969. In addition, selections from The Silent Language were reprinted in many dozens of edited books, magazines, and other publications. The book was translated into six languages, including Japanese in 1966 (by Masao Kunihiro and others). The popularity of The Silent Language vaulted Hall into a different lifestyle and workstyle of public lectures, wide travel, interviews with Psychology Today 12  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 and Playboy, and a circle of famous friends like Marshall McLuhan (Rogers, 2000), Margaret Mead, David Riesman, and Buckminster Fuller. Hall’s discussions and correspondence with these leading thinkers undoubtedly advanced his conceptualization of intercultural and nonverbal communication, as is suggested by his later books on proxemics (Hall, 1966) and chronemics (Hall, 1983). From the FSI to the Field of Intercultural Communication Despite the intellectual impacts of the paradigm developed at the Foreign Service Institute, Hall “made no attempt to create a new academic field with a novel research tradition” (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990). While he promoted the ideas formulated at the FSI through his articles and books, like The Silent Language, Hall did not perceive of himself as founding an academic specialty. He continued to think of himself as an anthropologist, rather than as a communication scholar. Hall continues to hold this viewpoint. Nonetheless, Edward Hall founded intercultural communication, and The Silent Language was the founding document of the field. Hall laid the intellectual foundation upon which many others have built. These later scholars were not linguists, presumably because linguistics focuses on verbal communication, not nonverbal communication (Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999). Why did the study of communication between people of different cultures come to be a sub-field of communication study, and not anthropology? Two possible explanations are: (1) Hall did not actively promote the institutionalization of intercultural communication within anthropology, and (2) Hall lacked a following of Ph.D. protégés in anthropology. Hall was a somewhat accidental founder of the new field of intercultural communication, and he did not foster its institutionalization in American universities (Rogers, 1994). However, Hall continued to conduct scholarly research in nonverbal communication (mainly in proxemics) during the era that he taught at the Illinois Institute of Technology (1963-1967) and at Northwestern University (1967-1977), and to write several important books about intercultural communication (Hall, 1966, 1976, and 1983). Nevertheless, a reading of Hall’s extensive correspondence in the University of Arizona archives shows that while he was an active intercultural communication researcher, he did not see his role as that of establishing the field of intercultural communication in university departments of anthropology (or communication or any other field). Ph.D. students can play an important role in establishing and advancing a new field of study. Hall lacked a large number of Ph.D. students who followed in his direct footsteps. The FSI was not a degree-granting institution, and “The FSI students were an unpromising pool of recruits for a theory group, even had 13  Hall’s inclination been to build a unified theory and constitute a theory group” (Murray, 1994, p. 220). It was left to communication scholars in the 1960s and 1970s to explore further along the path of intercultural communication started by Edward Hall in the late 1950s. He retired from full-time university teaching in 1977, which largely ended his prospects for creating academic followers. The study of intercultural communication first appeared as part of communication study in the late 1960’s via books such as Alfred Smith’s (1966) Communication and Culture, and through courses taught in communication departments (Hart, 1996). Table 2 traces the history of intercultural communication study. Table 2 Major Events in the Development of the Field of Intercultural Communication. Date Events 1950-55 Development of the original paradigm of intercultural communication by Edward T. Hall and others at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington, D.C. 1955 First publication on intercultural communication by Hall ("The Anthropology of Manners" in Scientific American) 1959 Publication of The Silent Language in English (a Japanese edition appeared in 1966). Late 1960s Development of the first intercultural courses at universities (e.g., University of Pittsburgh); and publication of Alfred Smith's (1966) Communication and Culture. 1970 International Communication Association established a Division of Intercultural Communication 1972 First publication of an edited book on Intercultural Communication: A Reader, by Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter 1973 Intercultural Communication by L.S. Harms at the University of Hawaii is published (the first textbook on intercultural communication). 1974 First publication of International and Intercultural Communication Annuals; The Society of Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR) is founded 1975 An Introduction to Intercultural Communication by John C. Condon and Fathi Yousef is published (the second textbook in intercultural communication); the Speech Communication Association established a Division of Intercultural Communication. 1977 International Journal of Intercultural Relations begins publication. 1983-Present Theory development in intercultural communication is emphasized (e.g., three International and Intercultural Communication Annual volumes on intercultural communication theory are published) 1998 Founding of the International Academy of Intercultural Relations Source: Hart (1996) and E.T. Hall Papers, Special Collections, University of Arizona Library. 14  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 Over the past four decades the field of intercultural communication has grown mainly within university departments of communication. Dozens of textbooks on intercultural communication have appeared. Throughout the growth of intercultural communication study, Hall’s work has remained influential. Hall and his publications are still highly cited, both within the field of intercultural communication and outside of the field. Hall ranks as the second most-cited intercultural communication author and three of his books are among the most- cited books in intercultural communication, on the basis of the Social Science Citation Index from 1972 to 1998 (Hart, 1999a). Hall was considered the most influential figure in the field of intercultural communication by respondents in a survey of U.S. members of the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR) (Harman and Briggs, 1991). Intercultural Communication in Japan American and Japanese intercultural communication scholars began studying U.S./Japanese communication behavior in the 1970s, stressing the differences in individualism/collectivism, low-context/high-context cultures, self-disclosure, and other values (Condon & Saito, 1974, 1976; Barnlund, 1975). Communication research on American/Japanese interaction, conducted by both U.S. and by Japanese intercultural communication scholars, expanded tremendously in the following decades. Today there are more studies of Japanese/American communication than of intercultural communication between any two other cultures (Ito, 1992). Why? The United States and Japan are the two largest economic powers in the world, and a high volume of trade and personnel interchange occurs between them. Further, several early and influential communication scholars, such as John C. Condon, William B. Gudykunst, and Clifford Clarke had personal life experiences involving Japanese/American communication, which influenced their research and writing about intercultural communication. Condon taught for a dozen years in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s at International Christian University, Tokyo. Gudykunst served at a U.S. Navy base in Japan, in charge of intercultural communication. Clarke, a founder of the Summer Institute in Intercultural Communication at Stanford University (now held annually near Portland, Oregon), was raised by American missionary parents in Japan. Several important conferences and workshops on intercultural communication were held in Japan, bringing together scholars from the U.S. and Japan to focus on this new, growing field. Condon and Mitsuko Saito, his faculty colleague, organized two important conferences on intercultural communication, held at International Christian University, out of which books were edited (Condon & Saito, 1974, 1976). 15  While courses in intercultural communication are taught throughout the world today, usually in university departments of communication, in Japan these courses are also offered in university departments of English and schools of business. One reason for the growing popularity of intercultural communication, and for the location of some courses in business schools, is that this field is perceived in Japan as a particularly useful skill for use in international business. The Influence of Hall on Intercultural Communication in Japan Edward T. Hall made three major contributions to the field of intercultural communication in Japan. 1. Hall’s work made clear the concept of intercultural communication in Japan (he had also been one of the first scholars to use this term in the United States), stressing that interaction with non-Japanese people involved more than the mere exchange of words. Cultural systems of beliefs, values, and worldviews were also involved. Until Hall, much emphasis for so-called “internationalization” or “international communication” in Japan was placed simply on the mastery of eikaiwa (English conversation). The Japanese public prior to the mid-1960s believed that once an individual learned eikaiwa, that person would be an effective international communicator. Japanese simultaneous interpreters, who knew that much more was involved in achieving competence in dealing with English- speaking people, therefore felt the need to introduce such concepts as intercultural communication in Japan. Masao Kunihiro, who had majored in anthropology at the University of Hawaii, took notice of Hall’s work in intercultural communication in order to meet this need. As in the United States, Hall’s work helped Japanese scholars to identify the parameters of intercultural communication research and to establish this field in Japan by emphasizing the role of culture in communication with people from English-speaking countries. The introduction of Hall’s concept of intercultural communication also brought interdisciplinary perspectives to the issue of Japanese interactions with non- Japanese. The International Christian University conferences included Japanese scholars from various disciplines, including Takeo Doi and Chie Nakane. Two early and influential Japanese scholars of intercultural communication were (1) Masao Kunihiro, a university professor and legislator who co-translated Hall’s The Silent Language (Chinmoku No Kotoba) into Japanese (with Yoshimi Nagai and Mitsuko Saito), and who served as a main channel in introducing Hall’s paradigm, and (2) Mitsuko Saito, who, as a professor at International Christian University and a co-translator of Hall’s influential book, and a co- author with John C. Condon, trained simultaneous translators. These scholars understood that some English words lacked an equivalent in Japanese, and vice versa. The uniqueness of the Japanese language, and the difficulties in translating 16  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 such words as amae into English, and such English words as “love” into Japanese, attracted the attention of Japanese intercultural communication scholars (Kunihiro, 1973). For example, Doi (1974) pointed out that amae is a Japanese expression for verbal or nonverbal communication behavior intended to extract actions or words of love or special attention from another person (Ito, 2000). 2. Hall’s work directed the attention of Japanese scholars and language educators to nonverbal aspects of Japanese interpersonal and intercultural communication. Stimulated by Hall’s writings, they started to describe cultural characteristics of Japanese nonverbal communication (e.g., Ishii, 1973, 1988) and to examine the influence of nonverbal communication on Japanese intercultural communication, primarily with English-speaking people. Such cross- cultural and intercultural nonverbal investigations had important implications for the study of intercultural communication in Japan, since the Japanese people were often said to rely less on verbal communication than English-speaking people (who often have difficulty in reading the Japanese mind). A number of relevant studies reviewed by Miike and Ishii (1997, 1998) cited Hall’s work and/or used his theoretical framework to understand Japanese nonverbal behavior from both interpersonal and intercultural perspectives (e.g., Kume, 1986; Tohyama, 1991). Intercultural communication investigations in Japan explored such varied topics as silence, facial expressions, hand gestures, bowing and hierarchical relationships, gazing, eye contact, touching, proxemics and personal space, and the sense of time (Miike & Ishii, 1997, 1998; Ito, 1992; Kitao, 1989; Midooka, 1990; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1990). Several of these topics for intercultural communication inquiry were suggested by Hall (1950), and were then advanced by research on American/Japanese differences, and which illustrated the uniqueness of Japanese culture and communication behavior. Hall (1983) studied the role of wa (harmony) in Japanese culture. The study of nonverbal communication in Japan was directly influenced by Hall, particularly in its early years (Miike & Ishii, 1997, 1998), although in recent years, some Japanese scholars (for example, Hirai, 1987) criticized elements in Hall’s paradigm for intercultural communication as they apply to Japan. 3. Hall’s theoretical perspective, particularly high-context and low-context communication, facilitated the exploration of Japanese cultural concepts as they relate to interpersonal and intercultural communication. Hall (1982, 1983, 1987) touched on many Japanese indigenous concepts as high-context terms (for example, amae, ma, wa, and nemawashi) in his work. Hall also encouraged Japanese scholars to explore these concepts, and these scholars published important work on this topic (e.g., Kunihiro, 1973, 1976; Matsumoto, 1988). Hall’s conceptualization of high-context and low-context communication is particularly useful for many Japanese scholars in explaining Japanese communication through cultural concepts. Some investigators count heavily on 17  these polar concepts, while others quote these concepts to solidify their theories (e.g., Ishii, 1984). This line of inquiry, along with Nihonjinron (the discussions of the Japanese people) boom, contributed to the advancement and recognition of the field of intercultural communication in Japan. Such attempts at indigenous conceptualizations also allowed Japanese scholars to make international contributions by capturing Japanese communication psychology and phenomena that cannot easily be explained in English (Ito, 2000). Despite these important contributions of Edward T. Hall to intercultural communication studies in Japan, the celebration of his paradigm made Japanese scholars oblivious to some important intercultural issues for the Japanese. 1. As in the case of early U.S. intercultural communication research, Japanese intercultural communication scholarship paid scant attention to “domestic” intercultural relations with minority members of Japanese society, such as Koreans and Chinese. Almost all early research was conducted with the assumption that intercultural communication for the Japanese meant interaction with English-speaking people, particularly with U.S. Americans, in English. This limited conception of intercultural communication was because the simultaneous interpreters who introduced Hall’s framework in Japan had strong connections with the world of eikaiwa. For example, Masao Kunihiro invited John C. Condon to the NHK English Conversation program to talk about Hall’s work on nonverbal communication (Condon & Kunihiro, 1971). 2. Japanese intercultural communication scholarship followed Hall’s difference-focused approach to compare and contrast cultural communication behaviors of Japanese and English-speaking peoples. This comparative focus resulted in the negation of similarities (Hirai, 1988) and in reinforcement of the “Japanese-as-unique” syndrome, which is said to be an indigenous barrier to Japanese communication across cultures. Little attempt has been made to date to specify cultural similarities, especially between Japanese and other Asians. Many Japanese cultural concepts, which are already conceptualized as they relate to intercultural communication, need to be compared with equivalent concepts in other Asian cultures (Miike, 2001). 3. Japanese intercultural communication scholarship generally neglected power and privilege issues in intercultural communication in Japanese society. Japanese intercultural communication scholarship has done little to change the Japanese “vertical” sense of intercultural relations based on their inferiority complex toward whites from high-income countries and their superiority complex toward people from low-income countries in general, including whites from Eastern and Southern Europe and Latin America. This problematic vertical sense of intercultural relations is a long-standing problem which needs to be solved in order to truly internationalize Japanese society. The general conclusion of numerous investigations is that while many intercultural communication theories and behaviors from Edward T. Hall and 18  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 other U.S. scholars can profitably be applied in Japan, there are many unique aspects of Japanese intercultural communication. These differences, and similarities (which are more numerous than the differences [Ito, 2000; Kincaid, 1987]), energized conceptualizations and investigations. Much remains to be done. Nishiyama (2001) concluded: “The new challenge then is to generate new approaches of investigation on how people from different cultures and speaking different languages actually influence each other in specific intercultural contexts.” Conclusions The anthropologist Edward T. Hall, in collaboration with the linguist George L. Trager, established the original paradigm for intercultural communication, drawing particularly on (1) the Whorf-Sapir theory of linguistic relativity, and (2) Freudian psychoanalytic theory. Hall and Trager collaborated at a government training institute for diplomats and technical assistance workers in Washington, DC during the period from 1951 to 1955. The new field of intercultural communication migrated eventually into university-based departments of communication study in U.S. universities. In Japan, several university departments of communication offer courses in intercultural communication, but such instruction is also likely to be taught in business schools and in departments of English. The beginning of intercultural communication at the Foreign Service Institute in the 1950s influences this field today. For example, participatory training methods were utilized at the FSI. Simulation games, exercises, and other experiential methods are presently used to teach many intercultural communication courses, perhaps more than in any other communication course. Hall insisted that a learner had to do intercultural communication, not just talk about it. The applied and ameliorative nature of intercultural communication is part of the paradigm originated at the FSI in the early 1950s. Many students who enroll in intercultural communication courses want to learn how to solve the difficult problems of intercultural communication, and this desire to gain intercultural communication competence is reflected in contemporary textbooks, such as Gudykunst and Kim (1984/1992/1997) and Rogers and Steinfatt (1999). The case of Edward Hall and intercultural communication provides some understanding of the role of the founder of a new academic specialty. Perhaps, like Hall, the founder of a scholarly field needs to be eclectic in hybridizing ideas taken from various disciplinary sources, as in the case of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalytic theory (Rogers, 1994). A scholarly innovator also may be stimulated by encountering real-life problems that can best be solved through creating a new scholarly approach. In the case of Hall, this crisis or anomaly 19  (Kuhn, 1962/1970) occurred at the FSI when the usual content and methods of teaching anthropology were ineffective in training Foreign Service officers for international work. Finally, an institutional base is needed (1) to bring together the key scholars who found a new scholarly field, and (2) to support training a cadre of students to diffuse the founders’ paradigm. The Foreign Service Institute served admirably as a gathering place in which Hall, Trager, Birdwhistell, and others collaborated, but it was inappropriate as an organization in which to train a cadre of academic followers. After his experience at FSI, Hall taught in departments of anthropology at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) and at Northwestern University, institutional settings that did not support the training of specialists in intercultural communication. In part due to this lack of institutional support, the field of intercultural communication eventually grew to strength in university departments of communication in the United States. In Japan, scholarly attention to intercultural communication began in 1966 with publication of Hall’s The Silent Language in Japanese, and expanded in the 1970s with Barnlund’s (1975) book, Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States, and with the publication of influential volumes by Condon and Saito (1974, 1976), which grew out of conferences on intercultural communication that were held in Japan. More studies of Japanese/American intercultural communication have been completed than between any other pair of cultures, perhaps because of the stark cultural differences and due to the increasing contact between Japanese and Americans, particularly in business relationships. Edward T. Hall’s paradigm was a strong intellectual influence on conceptualizations of nonverbal communication in Japan, and, more broadly, in shaping the field of intercultural communication in Japan. 20  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 REFERENCES ANONYMOUS (1956). “A Tongue-Tied Foreign Service?” American Foreign Service Journal, 33: 28. BARNLUND Dean C. (1975). Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States: Communicative Styles of Two Cultures. Tokyo: Simul Press. BIRDWHISTELL Raymond L. (1952). Introduction to Kinesics. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute, Report. BRADFORD S. (1960). “Over the River and into the Language Course.” Foreign Service Journal, 37: 24-25. CARROLL John B. (1940/1956). “Introduction.” In Benjamin Lee WHORF. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-34. CONDON John C. & KUNIHIRO Masao (1971). “Interview: Nonverbal Communication.” Gendai Eigo Kyoiku (Modern English Teaching), 7(12): 12- 16 (Tokyo: Kenkyusha). CONDON John C. & SAITO Mitsuko (eds.) (1974). Intercultural Encounters with Japan: Communication - Contact and Conflict. Tokyo: Simul Press. CONDON John C. & SAITO Mitsuko (eds.) (1976). Communication across Cultures for What? A Symposium on Humane Responsibility in Intercultural Communication. Tokyo: Simul Press. DARWIN Charles (1872/1965). Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray/Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI Takeo (1974). “Some Psychological Themes in Japanese Human Relationships.” In John C. CONDON & Mitsuko SAITO (eds.), Intercultural Encounters with Japan: Communication - Contact and Conflict. Tokyo: Simul Press, pp. 17-26. GUDYKUNST William B. & KIM Young Yun (1984/1992/1997). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. GUDYKUNST William B. & NISHIDA Tsukasa (1990). “Communication in Interpersonal Relationships in Japan and the United States: Overview of a Research Program.” Bulletin of the Institute for Media and Communications Research, Keio University, 35: 1-48. HALL Edward T., Jr. (1947). “Race Prejudice and Negro-White Relations in the Army.” American Journal of Sociology 52: 401-409. 21  HALL Edward T., Jr. (1950). “Military Government on Truk.” Human Organization, 9: 25-30. HALL Edward T. (1955). “The Anthropology of Manners.” Scientific American, 192: 85-89. HALL Edward T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday; translated to Japanese in 1966 by Masao Kunihiro, Yoshimi Nagai and Mitsuko Saito as Chinmoku No Kotoba. Tokyo: Nanundo. HALL Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday; translated to Japanese in 1970 by Toshio Hidaka and Nobuyuki Sato as Kakureta Jigen. Tokyo: Misuzu Shobo. HALL Edward T. (1968). “Proxemics.” Current Anthropology, 9: 83-108. HALL Edward T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday; translated to Japanese in 1979 by Keiji Iwata and Yasushi Tani as Bunka Wo Koete. Tokyo: TBS Buritanika. HALL Edward T. (1978). “Human Needs for Autonomy and Dependence in Technological Environments: Review and Commentary.” In Brent R. RUBIN (ed.). Communication Yearbook II. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, pp. 23-28. HALL Edward T. (1982). “Making Oneself Misunderstood: Languages No One Listens to.” Speaking of Japan, 3(17): 20-22 (Tokyo: Keizai Koho Center). HALL Edward T. (1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books; translated to Japanese in 1983 by Akira Una as Bunka Toshiteno Jikan. Tokyo: TBS Buritanika. HALL Edward T. (1992). An Anthropology of Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books. HALL Edward T. (1994). West of the Thirties: Discoveries among the Navajo and Hopi. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books. HALL Edward T. & HALL Mildred R. (1987). Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books; translated to Japanese in 1986 by Jiro Katsuta as Kakureta Sai: Doitsujin Wo Rikaisuru Tameni. Tokyo: Media House. HALL Edward T. & TRAGER George L. (1953). The Analysis of Culture. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute/American Council of Learned Societies. 22  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 HARMAN Robert C. & BRIGGS Nancy E. (1991). “SIETAR Survey: Perceived Contributions of the Social Sciences to Intercultural Communication.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(1): 19-23. HART William B. (1996). “A Brief History of Intercultural Communication: A Paradigmatic Approach.” Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA. (Available at http://web.odu.edu/webroot/instr/ AL/wbhart.nsf/pages/histICC). HART William B. (1999a). “Interdisciplinary Influences in the Study of Intercultural Relations: A Citation Analysis of the International Journal of Intercultural Relations.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4): 575-589. HART William B. (1999b). The Historical Contribution of Boasian Anthropology to the Interdiscipline of Intercultural Relations. Ph.D. dissertation. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Department of Communication and Journalism. HERSKOVITS Melville J. (1973). Cultural Relativism. New York: Random House. HIRAI Kazuhiro (1987). “Conceptualizing a Similarity-Oriented Framework for Intercultural Communication Study.” Journal of the College of Arts & Sciences, Showa University, 18: 1-18. HIRAI Kazuhiro (1988). “Intercultural Communication Education: What to Teach.” Speech Communication Education (Journal of the Communication Association of Japan), 1: 1-26. HOCKETT Charles F. (1993). “George Leonard Trager.” Language, 69: 778-788. ISHII Satoshi (1973). “Characteristics of Japanese Nonverbal Communicative Behavior.” Communication (Journal of the Communication Association of the Pacific), 2(3): 43-60. ISHII Satoshi (1984). “Enryo-Sasshi Communication: A Key to Understanding Japanese Interpersonal Relations.” Cross Currents, 11(1): 49-58. ISHII Satoshi (1988). Nonverbal Communication in Japan. Tokyo: The Japan Foundation, Office for the Japanese studies Center, Orientation Seminars on Japan Number 28. ITO Youichi (1992). “Theories on Intercultural Communication Styles from a Japanese Perspective: A Sociological Approach.” In Jay BLUMLER, Jack MCLEOD, & Karl ROSENGREN (eds.), Comparatively Speaking: Communication and Culture across Space and Time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 238-268. 23  ITO Youichi (2000). “What Causes the Similarities and Differences among the Social Sciences in Different Cultures? Focussing on Japan and the West.” Asian Journal of Communication, 10(2): 93-123. KINCAID D. Lawrence (ed.) (1987). Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. KITAO Kenji (1989). “The State of Intercultural Communication in the United States: A Brief History to the Early 1980s.” In Kenji KITAO & S. Kathleen KITAO (eds.), Intercultural Communication: Between Japan and the United States. Tokyo: Eichosha Shinsha, pp. 3-26. KUHN Thomas S. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. KUME Teruyuki (1986). “Perception of Time of Japanese and Americans in Intercultural Settings.” Kobe City University Journal, 37(1-3): 63-85. KUNIHIRO Masao (1973). “Indigenous Barriers to Communication.” The Japanese Interpreter, 8(1): 96-108. KUNIHIRO Masao (1976). “The Japanese Language and Intercultural Communication.” The Japanese Interpreter, 10(3/4): 270-283. LEDERER William J. & BURDICK Eugene (1958). The Ugly American. New York: Norton. LEEDS-HURWITZ Wendy (1990). “Notes in the History of Intercultural Communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the Mandate for Intercultural Training.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76(3): 262-281. MATSUMOTO Michihiro (1988). The Spoken Way-Haragei: Silence in Japanese Business and Society. Tokyo: Kodansha International. MIDOOKA Kiyoshi (1990). “Characteristics of Japanese-Style Communication.” Media Culture & Society, 12(4): 477-489. MIIKE Yoshitaka (2001). “Beyond Eurocentrism in the Intercultural Field: Searching for an Asiacentric Paradigm,” Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. MIIKE Yoshitaka & ISHII Satoshi (1997). “An Analysis of the English-Language Literature on Japanese Nonverbal Communication (1966-1997): Part I” (in Japanese). Intercultural Communication Studies, 10: 119-135. MIIKE Yoshitaka & ISHII Satoshi (1998). “An Analysis of the English-Language Literature on Japanese Nonverbal Communication (1966-1997): Part II” (in Japanese). Intercultural Communication Studies, 11: 137-150. 24  Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2002 MODELL Judith S. (1983). Ruth Benedict: Patterns of a Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. MURRAY Stephen D. (1994). Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America: A Social History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. NISHIYAMA Kazuo (2001). “A New Challenge to Intercultural Communication Scholars and Researchers.” Newsletter: Intercultural Communication, 39: 1-2. PERRY Helen Swick (1982). Psychiatrist of America: The Life of Harry Stack Sullivan. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ROGERS Everett M. (1994). A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach. New York: Free Press. ROGERS Everett M. (1999). “Georg Simmel’s Concept of the Stranger and Intercultural Communication Research.” Communication Theory, 9(1): 58-74. ROGERS Everett M. (2000). “The Extensions of Men: The Correspondence of Marshall McLuhan and Edward T. Hall.” Mass Communication and Society, 3(1): 117-135. ROGERS Everett M. & HART William B. (2001). “The Histories of Intercultural, International, and Development Communication.” In William B. GUDYKUNST & Bella MODY (eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1-18. ROGERS Everett M. & STEINFATT Thomas M. (1999). Intercultural Communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. SIMMEL Georg (1908). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die formen der vergesellschaftung (Sociology: Studies in the Forms of Societalization). Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot. SIMMEL George (1921). “The Social Significance of the ‘Stranger’.” In Robert E. PARK & Ernest W. BURGESS (eds.), Introduction to the Science of Sociology. University of Chicago Press, pp. 322-327. SMITH Alfred G. (1966). Communication and Culture: Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. SORRELLS Kathyrn (1998). “Gifts of Wisdom: An Interview with Dr. Edward T. Hall.” The Edge: The E-Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1(3): 1-12. Retrieved October 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.interculturalrelations.com/vli3Summer1998/sum98sorrellhall.htm.. SUMNER William Graham (1906/1940). Folkways. Boston: Ginn. 25  TOHYAMA Yasuko (1991). “Aspects of Japanese Nonverbal Behavior in Relation to Traditional Culture.” In Yoshihiko IKEGAMI (ed.), The Empire of Signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181-218. WHORF Benjamin Lee (1940). “Science and Linguistics.” Technology Review, 42: 229-231, 247-248. WHORF Benjamin Lee (1940/1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. John B. Carroll (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 26