Have Hand Gestures Become Globalized?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Department of English Ivona Kukić HAVE HAND GESTURES BECOME GLOBALIZED? Master’s Thesis Supervisor : Dr. Mateusz - Milan Stanojević Zagreb, December 2018 1 ABSTRACT This research paper aims to examine whether emblematic gestures have become globalized. This hypothesis was based on everyday experience of globalization processes that have shrunk the world and brought closer people of different cultures, religions and languages. In order to test this hypothesis , q uestionnaires consisting of fifteen emblematic gestures were given to seventy participants coming from different parts of the world. The results show that members of cultures more similar to the American one (e.g. Austra lian participants ) tend to interpret emblems more similarly to Americanized conventions. On the other hand, members of more c onservative cultures (e.g. the Turkish participants) tend to interpret gestures like ‘the OK sign’ more readily according to their own l ocal traditions, which is compatible to some degree to the previous researc h on emblems. The absence of complete non - understanding and an insignificant percentage of a low level of understanding imply that the chosen emblems are already used world widely. Finally , interpretations of those emblems whose usage is restricted to just one culture (or country) have shown how American popular culture has also successfully promoted distant cultures and their recognizable features (e.g. the case of a Chinese emblem used by martial art practitioners). KEY WORDS: Globalization, Americanization, Culture, Nonverbal communication, Gestures, Culturally specific emblems. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ..... .5 1. Theoretical framework ................................................................. ... ...... ............................ .7 1.1. Definition, particularities and importance of culture........... ........... ............................ .7 1.2. Globalization and its influence on culture ................................................. ........... ...... 9 1.3. Nonverbal communication ............................................................ ............................ 12 1.4. The world of gestures ............................................... ..................... ............................ 14 1.5. Emblematic gestures ........................................................... .......... ............................. 15 1.6. The etymology of the given emblems ............................................ ....... ..................... 18 1.6.1. The raised clenched fist ..................................................... ..............................18 1.6.2. The ‘O . K . gesture’ ............................................................. ..............................21 1.6.3. The thumb - up .................................................................... ..............................22 1.6.4. The thumb - down ........................................................ ....... ..............................24 1.6.5. The finger cross ................................................................. ............................. 25 1.6.6. The stop gesture .............................................. .................. ............................. 27 1.6.7. The raised index finger...................................................... .............................. 28 1.6.8. The Moutza ...................................................................... ...............................30 1.6.9. The beckoning gesture ..................................................... ..............................30 1.6.10. The fig ............................................................................ .............................. 32 1.6.11. The snapping fingers ...................................................... .............................. 33 1.6.12. The ‘hand horn’ sign ...................................................... .............................. 35 1.6.13. The hold fist salute ......................................................... ..............................36 1.6.14. The ‘V’ sign ................................................................... ..............................3 7 1.6.15. The ‘Sei matto?’ gesture ................................................ ..............................39 2. Aims and hypotheses .......................................................................... .............................40 3 3. Methodology ................................................................................................. .................. 41 4. Questionnaire r esults and discussi on ....... ....................................... ............................. ...45 4.1. Compatible answers rate for each group of respondents ........... ..............................45 4.2. The level of underst anding ........................................................ ..............................49 4.3. The level of compatibility in interpretations for each emb lematic gesture .............53 CONCLUSION ...................................................... ............................... ............................. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........... ..... ................. .......................... ............................ ....................... 66 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. ...... 79 4 INTRODUCTION Everyday experience constantly proves that th e world is becoming a smaller place. In the whirlpool of this important phase in human history called globalization, different cultures start to exchange goods, working forces, knowledge, and experiences (Karabegović n.d.) . A s a linguist, I was most curious about the possible scenarios that might occur when p eople of different backgrounds communica te and interact with each other . Since nonverbal communication is realized subconsciously most of the time , and is dictated by cultural conventions (Samovar et al. 2012 , 266 - 306 ) , I assumed that nonverbal signals lik e emblems could cause many misunderstandings in multicultural surroundings. Indeed, previous (and only such extensive) research on emblems conducted by Morris et al. back in 1979 , showed that there were certain differences in the way that people from diffe rent European regions interpreted the same emblems (Kendon 2004 , 337 - 339 ). This study was the starting point of my research because it helped me compose my own research, choose suitable emblems for the questionnaire, and also provided necessary data based on which I was able to analyze my own results and make conclusion s about them. Nearly forty years after Morris et al.’s research, world has become a much different place due to technology development and globalization. One of the features of globalization is the so called ‘Americanization’ of the whole world, which is evidenced in establishing English as lingua franca, promoting only American or European consumer preferences, and popularity of American popular culture, brands and lifestyle (McKenzie, n.d.). In terms of verbal intercultural communication, English language has become a neutral, safe and common ground for all the participants. I started to wonder if the same happened in terms of nonverbal communication, i.e. whether members of different cultures around the world have started to apply ‘Americanized’ usage and interpretation of emblems. Just as with the English language, the ‘Americanized’ system of emblems and their meanings mig ht provide a safe ground as it is often illustrated in America n popular culture which is heavily advertised and omnipresent in world media. Thus, multicultural interlocutors might tend to resort to the ‘Americanized’ interpretations of emblems due to their popularity, expansiveness and availability aro und the globe . The main purpose of this research is to examine whether members of different cultures have already acquired the ‘Americanized’ version when decoding emblematic g estures. In order to do so it was important to choose emblems which were proven to have ‘locali zed’ meanings in Morris et al.’s survey because the level of compatibility between their and my 5 resul ts might imply that things have changed (i.e. that members of different cultures decode emblems according to the ‘Americanized standard) or that things hav e remained the same (i.e. that members of different cultures still decode emblems according to their local traditions). Thi s study consists of seven sections: intr oduction, theoretical framework , aims and hypotheses, methodology, results and discussion, and conclusion. Introduction provides a b rief elaboration on how this research is realized based on the previous research and for what purposes. Theoretical framework gives most important information on the fundamental terms of the research – culture, glob alization, nonverbal communication, gestures in general, emblematic gestures , and the intriguing origins of the emblems included in my questionnaire . Aims and hypotheses section explain s the purposes of this research and establish es premises that are going to be defended or rejected according to the r esults. In methodology section, a reader can find basic information on the technicalities of the survey. In results and discussion section, all the relevant findings are illustrated through charts and