THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURAL COMMUNICATION FACTORS ON ENGLISH COMMUNICATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRY

Authors

  • Supawadee Nualsri Master of Arts student, Communicative English Program, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Preeda Chaiya Lecturer, Ph.D., Tourism and Hotel Management, Mahasarakham University, Bangkok, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.355369

Keywords:

English Communication, Cross-Cultural Communication Factors, Cultural Awareness, Internal Communication, International Service Industry in Thailand

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between cultural communication factors and English communication and to examine the influence of cultural factors on English communication in the service industry in Thailand. The sampling method was convenience sampling; 202 participants were randomly chosen by the human resource managers from the 10 international hotels participating in this study. As part of their jobs, the selected participants had to have contact with other international service industries or overseas branches and to communicate in English in various ways in their daily work routine. The research instrument was a questionnaire specifically designed to investigate the influence of cultural factors on English communication in the international service industry. The participants were asked to answer questions based on the concepts of body language, cultural awareness, cross-cultural communication, spoken communication, written communication, and nonverbal communication. The research findings can be summarized as follows:(1) cross-cultural communication factors were found to have an influence on English communication primarily whilst staff were using email, which was the most widely used form of communication in the industry; and (2) there were three cultural communication factors that affect English communication, which can be mapped into three significant groups: (a) body language, (b) cultural awareness, and (c) cross cultural communication.

References

AruneeNamamuti (1999). A Study of English Communication between hotel frontdesk staff and

ASEAN Guests. Master of Arts thesis, Ramkhamhaeng University.

Dube, L., & Pare, G. (2001). Global virtual teams. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), 71-73.

Gimenez, J., C. (2005). The language of business e-mail: An opportunity to bridge theory and

practice [Electronic version]. ScriptaManent, 1(1).

Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston,

Inc.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Cultural and Interpersonal Communication.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2001). Asian American ethnicity and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Jackson, T. W., Dawson, R., & Darren, W. (2003). Understanding e-mail interaction increases

organizational productivity. Communications of the ACM, 46(8), 80-84.

Ryan, C. (1995). Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, concepts, problems. London:

Routledge.

Schmidt, S. (2014). An analysis of English writing ability and style of Germans [Electronic

version]. Humanities and Social Sciences Review, 3(2).

Shachaf, P. (2005). Bridging cultural diversity through e-mail [Electronic version]. Journal of

Global Information Technology Management, 8(2), 46-60.

Sproull, L., &Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational

communication. Management Science, 32 (11), 1492-1512.

Tariszka-Semegine, E. (2012). Organizational internal communication as a means of improving

efficiency [Electronic version]. European Scientific Journal, 8 (15), 86-96.

Vile, D., & Collins, J. (2004). The “Sharp End” Series. Email: Business or pleasure? Mission

criticality meets personal interest [Electronic version]. Quocirca Ltd.

Downloads

Published

2016-01-01

How to Cite

Nualsri, S., & Chaiya, P. (2016). THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURAL COMMUNICATION FACTORS ON ENGLISH COMMUNICATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRY. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.355369