CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES IN TURKISH AND AMERICAN SPEECH COMMUNITIES: A SCHOOL SETTING
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Conflicts in communication are very common in every culture. However, resolving them varies from one culture to another. Conflict management strategies in communication revolve around five solutions collaboration, compromise, avoidance, competition, and accomodation as stated by Kilman (1977). This study attempts to explore ways of terminating verbal conflicts in academic settings. In the study, first, we aim to evaluate the ways of solving conflicts in two settings: a Turkish and an American University. Secondly, taking a pragmatic perspective, a classification of speech acts used to end conflicts is targeted according to both Killman’s strategies and a facework analysis. specifically, it is aimed to investigate:
- generally how Turkish and American speakers end conflicts in discourse and which strategies they use in order to resolve conflicts
- how “face” is reflected in those speech acts as categorized by Ting Toomey (1988, 1992).
- any differences between Turkish and American speakers styles
- any changes in conflict resolution due to power status in both cultures.
Results are valuable in that they add up to the knowledge about intercultural pragmatic language use and cultural cognitions. Moreover, as the research aims to reveal basic verbal and behavioural differences between two communities, it is likely to contribute to intercultural understanding.
Article Details
Authors retain copyright to their work, licensing it under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License and grant the journal exclusive right of first publication with the work simultaneously and it allows others to copy and redistribute the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in IOJET and provided that no changes were made on the article.
References
Ausberger, G. (1995). Conflict Mediation Across Cultures. Louisville,KY: John Knox Press
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Cai,D and Fink, E (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists, Communication Monographs, 69:1, 67-87
Carr, M. (1993). "Chinese "Face" in Japanese and English (Part 2)", The Review of Liberal Arts 85:69-101.
Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2001). Cultural orientations in theindividualism–collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community.Journal of Management, 24, 265–304.
Fisher, R. and W. Ury (1983). Getting to Yes –Negotiating Agreement without Giving in. NewYork: Penguin
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life .NewYork: Doubleday.
French,W & D. Albright (1998). Resolving a Moral Conflict through Discourse. Journal of Business Ethics. 17, 177-194.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.
Hammer, M.R. (2005). The Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory: A Conceptual Framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Volume 9, Issue 6, pp.675-695.
Hocker, J.L. & Wilmot, W.W. (1991). Interpersonal Conflict. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.Brown.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural dimensions. Retrieved June 25th, 2013, from:http://www.geert-hofstede.com/.
Kilmann, R. H., and K. W. Thomas, (1977). "Developing a Forced-Choice Measure of Conflict-Handling Behavior: The MODE Instrument," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1977), 309-325 http://www.kilmann.com/conflict.html
The Thomas-Kilmann Instrument http://www.cerritos.edu/anagao/Conflict_Scale.pdf
Kim, Y.Y. (2012). Comparing InterculturalCommunication. In The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research” Frank Esser&Thomas Hanitzsch (Eds.) pp. 119-133. Handbook Series. Routledge.
Kozan, MK and Ergin, C. (1998). Preference for third party help in conflict management in the United States and Turkey: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29: 525–539.
Lee Agee, M. & H.E. Kabasakal, (1993) Exploring Conflict Resolution Styles: A Study of Turkish and American University Business Students. International Journal of Social Economics 20 (9), pp.3 - 14.
Liang G. & Han J. (2005) A Contrastive Study on Disagreement Strategies for Politeness between American English & Mandarin. Asian EFL Journal 7(1)
Ng, John (2008). The Four Faces of Face http://www.mediate.com/articles/the_four_faces_of_face.cfm
Croucher, S.M. (2011). Religion and onflict: An Emerging Field of Inquiry in “The Handbook of Conflict Communication” J.G. Oetzel&S.T.Toomey (eds.) . (Chapter 21). Sage Publications.
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparisonof China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235-258.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 368-376.
Ting-Toomey, S Theory Reflections: Face Negotiation Theory Retrieved on June 26th, 2013 from http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/theory_connections_facework.pdf
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a Theory of Conflict and Culture. In Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes, eds. W. B. Gudykunst, L. B. Stewart, and S. Ting-Toomey. pp. 71-86. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural Conflicts: A Face-Negotiation Theory. In Theories in Intercultural Communication, eds. Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst. pp. 213–235. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, W., Wright, T., & Oetzel, J. G. (2000). Cultural/ethnic identity salience and conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 47-81.
Ting-Toomey, S and Oetzel, JG. (2001).Managing intercultural conflict effectively, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The Matrix of Face: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory. In Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, ed. W. B. Gudykunst. 71-92. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Triandis,H.(1995).Individualism and collectivism. Boulder,CO:Westview.
Vargas, J.H. and M. Kemmelmeier (2013) Ethnicity and Contemporary America Culture: A meta-analytic investigation of horizantal –vertical individualism-collectivism. Journal of Cross cultural Pscyhology 44(2) 195-222 Sage Publications.