Abstract

 

Communication in higher education classrooms is bounded by socio-cultural factors that facilitate or hinder the learning process. Specifically, intercultural communication can hinder the cognitive and affective learning for the students, especially if the instructor does not share a similar cultural background as them. Gumperz (1982) stated that linguistic cues are more difficult for non-native speakers and even if the participants in a conversation speak the same language they will still face difficulties in message interpretation due to their different social and cultural backgrounds. With that being the case, McCroskey and Richmond (1992) claimed that “immediate behaviors of teachers might have different impact in one culture than they have in another” (p. 114). Decades of past research indicate that instructor verbal immediacy behaviors positively influence students’ learning and motivation in higher education classrooms (Frymier, 1994; Hsu, 2010; Johnson & Miller, 2002; Mehrabian, 1969; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). Linguistic usage has not been adequately addressed with verbal immediacy for classes consisting of students from countries outside of the U.S.A. Communication gaps in U.S. classrooms that teach students Arabic may exist because of the instructor’s linguistic and communicative cues that are used with verbal immediacy behaviors reflecting the instructor’s country of origin. For example, humor, a form of verbal immediacy is also considered a linguistic and cultural barrier that might affect students’ learning. Bell (2006) stated, “While humor itself is a universal phenomenon, its instantiations within cultural groups can be very particular, involving culturally specific topics, forms and styles of language, and contextualization cues” (p. 4). Verbal immediacy contextual cues are interpreted from a subjective point of view, and this can be a challenge for language teachers because their profession requires linguistic and cultural exchange of information with students from countries outside of the U.S. As the number of people in the U.S. who speak Arabic increases, a better understanding of the linguistic and cultural implications within U.S. higher education classrooms is needed. This paper presents an understanding of instructor verbal immediacy behaviors and cultural linguistic possible implications for Arabic instructors teaching Arabic in foreign language classes in the U.S.

​

References:

Bell, N. (2006). Interactional adjustments in humorous intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(1), 1–28.

Frymier, A. B. (1994). A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42: 133–144.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hsu, L. (2010). The impact of perceived teachers’ nonverbal immediacy on students’ motivation for learning English. Asian EFL Journal, 12(4), 188-204.   

Johnson, S. & Miller, A. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, (51)3, 280-292.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). Increasing teacher influence through immediacy. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 101-119). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 359-372.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10, (pp. 574-590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.