商务跨文化交际“跨文化传播”的概念:什么是跨文化传播学呢？跨文化传播学是由美国人类学家、跨文化研究学者爱德华?霍尔在20世纪50年代建立的一门学科，其英文表达为“Intercultural，在我国也翻译为“跨文化交际Communication 或Cross-cultural Communication”学”或者“跨文化交流学”。

跨文化传播学作为传播学的一个分支学科，旨在研究来自不同文化背景的人们是如何进行交流以及研究如何提高跨文化交流技巧，跨越跨文化交流障碍的方法和途径。

跨文化传播学是一门跨领域的学科，融合了人类学、文化学、心理学以及传播学等领域的研究成果。

跨文化传播的主要理论见诸于有关文化差异（文化维度）的著作中，特别是吉尔特?????霍夫斯泰德（Geert Hofstede）、哈里? C. 特兰狄斯（Harry C. Triandis）、方斯?特龙皮纳尔斯（Fons Trompenaars）、沙龙?施瓦兹(ShalomSchwartz)及克里佛德?吉尔兹（Clifford Geertz）等人的著作中。

目前，这些学者的相关理论已经广泛地运用到传播理论和传播情景中，特别是商务、管理和市场营销之中。

爱德华?霍尔（1914年5月16日出生于美国的密苏里州），社会学/文化人类学博士后。

20世纪50年代，爱德华?霍尔在美国美国政府部门的外派人员培训学院（Foreign Service Institute）任教，对外派出国人员进行跨文化技能培训。

期间，他提出了“高语境”和“低语境”文化，并撰写了几部非常畅销的有关跨文化传播的著作。

目录1，General Introduction…，2, What Does Cross-Cultural Communication Mean to Business People3，How to Make Introduction4，How to Deal with Business Cards5，How to Schedule Visiting and Entertaining6，ABC for Gifts Exchanging ,7, Are There Any Differences in Male and Female’s Communication 8，How Are Roles Females Playing in International Business?9, What Is the Range of Non-V erbal Communication in Business? …　10，Similar Encoding and Decoding of Non-Verbal Signals11，What Is Culture Conflict?12，What Is Culture Shock，and Acculturation13，What Is It Like at Negotiation Table14，The Device of Stereotyping in Cross—Cultural Communication15，How Can We Be InternationalHofstede and his Five Cultural Dimensions"Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster." Prof. Geert Hofsted霍夫斯泰德, Emeritus Professor, Maastricht University. Increasing internationalization has led to an appreciation that cultural differences are a key factor in getting things done in business. Working in France, Japan or the USA, for example, requires totally different styles of managing and co-operating.Professor Geert Hofstede has developed a five-dimensional model which explains cultural differences in a unique and powerful manner.Description for each of Hofstede's Dimensions1.Power Distance权利距离Index (PDI) that is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that 'all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others'.2. Individualism (IDV) on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesivein-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) whichcontinue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world.3. Masculinity (MAS) versus its opposite, femininity, refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women's valueson the other. The assertive pole has been called 'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values.4. Uncertainty Avoidance不确定性规避指数Index (UAI) deals with a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man's search for Truth.It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; 'there can onlybe one Truth and we have it'. People in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertaintyaccepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have as few rules as possible, and on the philosophical and religious level they are relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions.5. Long-Term Orientation (LTO) versus short-term orientation:长期观和短期观this fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars. It can be said to deal with Virtue regardless of Truth与真理无关，与传统美德有关. Values associated with Long Term Orientation are thrift节俭，坚忍不拔（中国人）and perseverance and protecting one's 'face'; values associated with Short Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations,. Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius, the most influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 B.C.; however, the dimension also applies to countries without a Confucian heritage.CHINAGeert Hofstede analysis for China has Long-term Orientation (LTO) thehighest-ranking factor (118), which is true for all Asian cultures. This Dimension indicates a society's time perspective and an attitude of persevering; that is, overcoming obstacles with time, if not with will and strength. (see Asian countries graph below)The Chinese rank lower than any other Asian country in the Individualism (IDV) ranking, at 20 compared to an average of 24. This may be attributed, in part, to the high level of emphasis on a Collectivist society by the Communist rule, as compared to one of Individualism.The low Individualism ranking is manifest in a close and committed member 'group', be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group.U.S.AThere are only seven (7) countries in the Geert Hofstede research that have Individualism (IDV) as their highest Dimension: USA (91), Australia (90), United Kingdom (89), Netherlands and Canada (80), and Italy (76).The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant and looks out for themselves and their close family members.The next highest Hofstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power structure. This situation generates a female population thatbecomes m ore assertive and competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.The United States was included in the group of countries that had the Long Term Orientation (LTO) Dimension added. The LTO is the lowest Dimension for the US at 29, compared to the world average of 45. This low LTO ranking is indicative of the societies' belief in meeting its obligations and tends to reflect an appreciation for cultural traditions.The next lowest ranking Dimension for the United States is Power Distance (PDI) at 40, compared to the world Average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.IntrinsicThe last Geert Hofstede Dimension for the US is Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with a ranking of 46, compared to the world average of 64. A low ranking in the Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension is indicative of a society that has fewer rules and does not attempt to control all outcomes and results. It also has a greater level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs."high context" and "low context"The general terms "high context" and "low context" (popularized by Edward Hall) are used to describe broad-brush cultural differences between societies.High context refers to societies or groups where people have close connections over a long period of time. Many aspects of cultural behavior are not made explicit because most members know what to do and what to think from years of interaction with each other. Your family is probably an example of a high context environment.Low context refers to societies where people tend to have many connections but of shorter duration or for some specific reason. In these societies, cultural behavior and beliefs may need to be spelled out explicitly so that those coming into the cultural environment know how to behave.Monochronic Time VS Polychronic TimeMonochronic TimeA monochronic time system means that things are done one at a time and time is segmented into precise, small units. Under this system time is scheduled, arranged and managed.The United States is considered a monochronic society. This perception of time is learned and rooted in the Industrial Revolution, where "factory life required the labor force to be on hand and in place at an appointed hour". For Americans, time is a precious resource not to be wasted or taken lightly. "We buy time, save time, spend time and make time. Our time can be broken down into years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and even milliseconds. We use time to structure both our daily lives and events that we are planning for the future. We have schedules that we must follow: appointments that we must go to at a certain time, classes that start and end at certain times, work schedules t hat start and end at certain times, and even our favorite TV shows, that start and end at a certain time.”　Monochronic Cultures* United States* Canada* Switzerland* Germany* ScandinaviaPolychronic TimeA polychronic time system is a system where several things can be done at once, and a more fluid approach is taken to scheduling time. Unlike Americans and most northern and western European cultures, Latin American and Arabic cultures use the polychronic system of time.These cultures are much less focused on the preciseness of accounting for each and every moment. As Raymond Cohen notes polychronic cultures are deeply steeped in tradition rather than in tasks -- a clear difference from their monochronic counterparts. Cohen notes that "Traditional societies have all the time in the world. The arbitrary divisions of the clock face have little saliency in cultures grounded in the cycle of the seasons, the invariant pattern of rural life, and the calendar of religious festivities".Instead, their culture is more focused on relationships, rather than watching the clock.for an event if they are with family or friends, They have no problem being “late”　because the relationship is what really matters. As a result, polychronic cultures have a much less formal perception of time. They are not ruled by precise calendars and。