Summarize some of the main ideas behind Figuring Foreigners Out and the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture. Do you predominantly agree with these assessments? Are there any statements, generalizations, and opinions expressed in the reading that you find problematic? How do these ideas relate both to your own native culture, and the target culture associated with the language you are studying?

You need to be a member of The SDLAP Ning to add comments!

Join The SDLAP Ning

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • The text explores the different ways cultures can differ, such as their concepts of personal identity, nonverbal communication, and the perception of time. I agree with much of the text’s insights. I spent my high school in Saipan, where, the culture is very different from that of Korea. While living there, I developed some nonverbal gestures, like raising my eyebrows to answer or acknowledge something. However, this was seen as unusual and disrespectful in Korea so I had to discourage this habit. The text explores how cultures can differ in aspects like personal identity, nonverbal communication, and the perception of time. I agree with much of the text’s insights, particularly based on my own experiences. I spent my high school years in Saipan, where the culture was quite different from that of Korea. While living there, I developed some nonverbal gestures, like raising my eyebrows to indicate agreement or acknowledgment. However, I later learned that this was seen as unusual in Korea, so I had to adjust and discourage this habit.

    Korea is known for its collectivist culture, where community and group cohesion are highly valued, and I truly experienced this firsthand while living in Saipan. Although Saipan is a small island, the Korean population, while limited, amounted to around 1000 people. Still, there was a group chat that included all the Koreans on the island. In this chat, useful information and any important warnings were shared. Korean parents, in particular, found ways to help one another, especially when it came to supporting their children and assisting them in getting into school. Through these readings, I was able to reflect on my personal experiences with Korea’s culture and gain a deeper understanding of the unique qualities that shape Korean society and culture.

    • I really love it when people bring their own personal stories into these discussions! I think there are a lot of cultural nuances that are specific to individual cultures that are hard to categorize in those five metrics. It almost feels limiting to have to categorize culture through some quantitative metric. Just as you've talked about, things like non-verbal communication and methods of convening are a lot harder to express through a this-vs-that metric. I also did not know that you went to high school in Saipan so I thought that was really cool.

  • Figuring Foreigners Out looks at 5 metrics: individualist/collectivist, nonverbal communication, monochronic/polychronic, internal/external, and direct/indirect communication. Rather than using some quantitative metric, it's a qualitative explanation of the difference, with several examples provided to help readers understand how one culture would behave one way while the other would behave entirely differently. I agree heartily with everything Figuring Foreigners Out says because of the author’s preemptive statements after explaining each concept saying ‘no person is entirely one way or the other;’ and ‘no culture is entirely one way or the other.’ While it can be a bit repetitive, I think it’s important and I appreciate the author highlighting this with each new metric introduced as the world is grey and readers must recognize that having the same characteristic across two cultures doesn't mean they're the same culture. 

    Hofstede looks at 6 metrics for society: Masculinity, Uncertainty avoidance, Power Distance, Collectivism/Individualism, and Long-term Orientation and Indulgence as a way of understanding different cultures. 

    It’s interesting to look at Brazil, a country I’m considering living in using these cultural dimensions. I have a long-term orientation something Brazil scores worse on than the US but I also have a more restrained temperament which is something Brazil seems to score better on. I’m a little put off by how Brazil scores on some of these metrics compared with the United States, but I think it’s important to recognize that these numbers are a poor substitute for actually living in your target culture and seeing if it’s an environment that resonates with you. 

    He makes a lot of broad claims using these numerical metrics but its important to recognize that just because two countries have similar power-distance scores that doesn’t mean power dynamics will be identical in both countries. Likewise I would have loved more information on how exactly Hofstede established these numbers. I think as a society, Americans have a love of numbers even though they can’t always accurately reflect nuance.   

    Something else I found problematic was that Hofstede said the scores can be assumed to be stable over time because if the entire world moves towards smaller power distances (which it appears it is over the past 30 years) then the differences between countries will remain the same. While I see the value of Hofstede’s work as a short hand for understanding and comparing cultures, I think his data will rust and (like every other social scientist's data) should be constantly reassessed. 

    Looking at Mexico on the Cyborlink website, I take their numbers with a high grain of salt. The website design and data may be a bit out of date seeing as they claim that that Mexico’s population is 88 million (https://www.cyborlink.com/besite/mexico.htm)

    Mexico - Mexican Business Etiquette, Vital Manners, Cross Cultural Communication, and Geert Hofsted…
    Mexico, Mexican etiquette, business culture, manners, and Geert Hofstede Analysis
    • You make a great point about how numbers can't easily define cultures. It's interesting that you're considering Brazil, and your comparison of scores really shows how complex cultural differences are. I agree that numbers can help but can’t replace real experiences in a culture.

    • I generally agree here, but I think I dislike the practice of operationalizing cultures and ascribing variables to them. I think a full culture is far too dynamic and fluid to ever accurately denote with categories or values, and especially as a history major, I am much more inclined to invest myself in reading into the literature on a given culture or language, rather than relying on overarching studies and databases.

  • One key idea that Aitchison’s linguistics touches on is the integration of different linguistic perspectives to understand language as a whole. Growing up learning Chinese, I became familiar with the learning of tonal phonology and character-based writing, but learning English introduced me to new complexities in syntax and grammar. Now, as I study Korean, I’m encountering yet another set of language rules, particularly around honorifics and politeness levels. Through phonology, I’ve learned how mastering Hangul pronunciation helps me engage more effectively with the language, while morphology provides insight into how verbs and modifiers function to alter meaning. The focus on syntax and pragmatics is especially important in Korean, given its SOV structure and the cultural weight placed on speech levels.

    Although I’ve experienced language learning through Chinese and English, Aitchison’s breakdown has deepened my understanding of how to approach these categories in Korean. For example, while the syntax may be different across all three languages, knowing how Korean organizes information in sentences has helped me navigate more effectively. Pragmatics plays an especially crucial role, as adjusting speech based on the social hierarchy is key to communication in Korean culture.

    In addition, learning about semantics and pragmatics allows me to understand not just literal translations, but the cultural context behind words and phrases, which is similar to how I had to adapt from Chinese to English. Aitchison’s framework, much like Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, offers a multidimensional view that helps me navigate not just linguistic structures, but also the social contexts in which these languages are used.

    • I think it is amazing that you have so much knowledge in multiple languages! I can imagine that learning styles for each language is different and your approaches have to be systematically appropriate for the structure of each language, so it is interesting to see your different approaches to each!

  • One main idea that Figuring Foreigners Out touches on is the difference between individualism and collectivism. Growing up in a collectivist culture, I could always discern the difference between the two. Independent success and personal freedom were highly valued amongst my American friends, while family, harmony, interdependence, and respect were the main priority among my Korean friends. Although I consider myself to be familiar with gestures and facial expressions as nonverbal communication, something I learned from the reading is the three main categories that these nonverbal behaviors can be sorted into– behaviors in both target and native cultures having the same meaning, different meaning, and no meaning in one, but meaning in the other. Knowing this distinction between behaviors will allow me to be more socially aware in various contexts, and in turn, will help me respond and react appropriately. This reading also highlights the difference between monochronic and polychronic time, internal and external worldviews, and direct and indirect communication. I have observed stark contrasts between all of these key concepts when reflecting on my experience of being a Korean American individual, and I am confident that identifying these factors will strengthen my cross-cultural understanding and fluency. As for the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture, while there was some overlap in talking about collectivism and individualism, core concepts that are highlighted include power distance, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence. I believe that having this knowledge of cultural dimensions and differences shapes me into a more well-rounded individual, enabling me to view situations with a multidimensional perspective.

    • I really resonate with your reflection, especially your insights on individualism and collectivism—those themes hit close to home for me too. Growing up learning to navigate between cultural values, I’ve found that understanding these differences, like you mentioned with the Hofstede Dimensions, has really helped me see things more clearly and connect with people on a deeper level. Your take on nonverbal communication stood out as well—it’s such a useful tool for bridging cultural gaps, and I can see how applying these ideas will make you even more attuned in cross-cultural settings.

  • Back in freshman year, as part of international orientation, we were handed out paper sheets explaining the categories laid out in 'Figuring Foreigners Out'. The big idea of this excerpt is that we as individuals think and act differently, often due to our upbringing. The idea of categorising individuals is reflected in both texts we had to read for class, where in variable categories, we often find ourselves fitting one more than the other. Some examples include individualist vs collectivist thinking, monochronic vs polychronic perceptions of time, direct vs indirect means of communication, and whether they follow traditional means of masculinity or avoidance of conflict/uncertainty.

    I personally can't entirely agree with many of the categories. While I understand that our values and actions can be shaped by how we were raised, it is not the "end-all-be-all" for our behavior. Also, we don't necessarily have to reside with one value only. For example, in different situations, our thinking can be more collective/individualist. We as individuals cannot be confined into categories as we can change based on our surroundings, and our own personal beliefs.

    I've mentioned this a lot but I am Malaysian-Chinese, where ethnically I may be Chinese, but the Malaysian-Chinese identity has molded itself into one that is separate from China. With that being said, my culture is formed through a combination of Chinese traditions and Malaysian norms. Hence, my approach to learning Malay is shaped from my identity as both a native speaker and a (large) minority in the country.

This reply was deleted.