is the patriarchal system. From the family perspective, it is obvious that the
fatherhood is obvious. From the perspective of this study, teachers are mainly in the classroom, and the leaders in the lecture hall speak as leaders. Lord, the status hierarchy is obvious. 4.2.2 Social Distance
Hall's social distance is generally on more formal occasions, such as workplaces or interviews. However, because of the lack of formality in my environment, I chose the college students as the observed objections, based on the principles of adjusting measures to local conditions. Social communication in this paper generally refers to the two people are strangers to each other, this study selected two groups of cases to observe, one group regards \me) introduce me to B student. It is the social distance that the communication distance between “ I ” and B student in this process. The other group observes the communication process of others. A student introduces B student to C student. Among them, A students is acquainted with and familiar with C students. Moreover, A student is also acquainted with B student. And B student is stranger for C student. B students and C students are introduced by A students. The distance between B student and C student in this process is the social distance. Following is the specific process of observation:
Case1: I was female. I read in the library on April 20, 2018. When I was out in the bathroom, I met a male friend , A. He was talking to another male friend B. I was familiar with A and I did not know with B. Walking past, I greeted A. A introduced me to B. I nodded to B and gave a simple conversation. We exchanged names,
majors and interests, then prepared to left. In the process, I have been watching the distance between B and me. I use fixed-point measurement methods to ask students B to measure the distance between us before left. At this time, the measurement does not affect the normal communication between the two people. It can also give relatively scientific and reliable data. After B agrees, I measured and got the corresponding data.
In Case 1, when I was introduced with B, when I was just introduced, because I was heterosexual and I was not acquainted with him, we communicated with each other across A and stayed at a distance of 1m-1.2m. In the process of talking , the distance between us will gradually shrink, and generally maintained at 60cm. Case2: On the evening of April 21st, in the West Campus, I watched the
communication activities of three girls as onlookers. A introduced B to C. Since the three students were of the same sex, in their process of communication, despite B is not familiar with C, B was willing to approach C and express the friendship. At the end of their conversation, I came up with my own request, hoping to measure the distance between B and C. The three female students agreed. So I measured the closest distance and the longest distance between B and C from the previous observation.
In case 2, B is generally kept at a distance of 50-60cm from C and the distance is able to reach each other when they reach out.
The social distance theory of Hall generally refers to beyond intimacy and familiar interpersonal distance. The social distance in the general workplace and the public is 1.2-2.1m, and the social distance in the very formal and serious occasions is 2.1-3.6m.
Clearly, the social distance in China is closer than that in the United States, and the relevant reasons for the analysis are:
Analyzing the social distance difference between Chinese and American from the perspective of culture dimensions, individualism and collectivism can be used to explain the differences in the social distance. Compared to American individualism,
Chinese people pay more attention to the collective. Confucius once described
collectivism: if a person wants to achieve something, he must rely on other people. Influenced by Confucius' thoughts, Chinese people tend to rely on others, and when they encounter difficulties, they also tend to seek help from others. Americans have obvious individualism. They want to obtain through their own efforts and struggles, seeking and emphasizing the realization of personal values. Under such a cultural background, Chinese people tend to keep a close distance with others to show their friendship and seek help. Americans, on the other hand, pay more attention to maintaining a certain personal space and keeping a distance with others.
The research groups are different, and the main university students in this study are concerned. However, the proxemics theory of Hall studies mainly American middle-class groups. Formality will have a certain influence on social distance. The American middle class is more formal because of its more workplace. Correspondingly, the social distance of American is farther than the social distance of Chinese. 4.2.3 Personal distance
Personal distance is like reaching out to each other in the proxemics theory of Hall . The two persons just know each other, but they have no special relationship. This is the distance most often maintained when conducting informal personal conversations. When talking with people, you can not stand too close. This is a distance of a sense of division on the interpersonal interval, with less direct physical contact. In the university environment, the individual distance can generally refer to the distance between classmates. This relationship is that the two people have known each other, but can not reach the intimate relationship. Therefore, I chose two groups of cases for observation and analysis. I chose a group of heterosexual students and a group of same-sex students to observe the distance between us.
Following are the observation process and results of the two groups of case:
Case 1: On April 22, 2018, I had a walk with a friend of the opposite sex on the West Campus. During the chat, we talked about some topics about the future of life.
Because it is the opposite sex, I have always maintained a certain distance from him, but because we are classmates, so the distance was not be too far, generally
maintained at 50-80cm. We sometimes walk side by side, sometimes sit on the lawn to chat, when the distance changes, I will observe the fixed point of the two people, after the communication, I measured the distance between us. The closet distance is 40cm. The closest distance appeared when I talked with my classmate on a topic of common interest. The furthest distance between us appeared when we were sitting face to face and talking on the lawn. When I talked about topics that he was not interested in, he would unconsciously lengthen the distance with me. The longest distance does not exceed 80cm.
Case 2: On April 15th, 2018, I happened to encounter a female student who was known during the job search at the entrance of the dormitory. She and I are
different majors. Our relationship cannot be close, after the job seeking,we do not contact any more. Thus, we are just classmates. We talked about the work at the door of the dormitory. We talked about the job and future career planning. During the communication process, I always observed the distance between me and her. The distance between us generally maintain at 30-50cm.
The data of the above two cases can be concluded that the personal distance in China is between 30-50cm, and the longest distance is not more than 80cm. The personal distance of Hall's proxemics theory is generally from 45cm to 120cm, like reaching out to each other. This is the distance that often maintained when
conducting informal personal conversations. When talking with others, people do not stand too close, generally it is better to stay outside 50cm. This is a sensitive
distance in the interpersonal interval, with less direct physical contact. The personal
distance is in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 centimeters). It is a good time for friendly handshakes. This is a space for socializing with acquaintances. Strangers entering this area means the violation for others. The personal distance is in the
range of 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 122 cm). Any friend or acquaintance is free to enter this space.
The personal distance of the Chinese is 30-80cm, while the personal distance of
Americans is 45-120cm. Obviously, the personal distance of China is closer than that of the United States. This data will change on different occasions and backgrounds. The following are the reasons for this difference:
The relationship between individuals in an individualistic society is loose, people tend to care about themselves and their families, while a society with a tendency toward collectivism focuses on inter-ethnic relations, and cares about big families. The
strong ethnic relations can give people continuing protection, while individuals must be absolutely loyal to the ethnic group. China is a typical collectivist society. People are accustomed to relying on others and collectives, so they tend to approach others when they communicate with others, and keep close distances with others. The United States is a typical individualist society. It pays more attention to the
realization of individual values. Under the influence of such a cultural background, Americans will pay attention to maintaining a certain personal space when they interact with friends. At the same time, it will unconsciously keep a certain distance with friends.
The differences in the concept of privacy between China and the United States cause the individual distance between China and the United States to be different. The Americans attach great importance to privacy, so Americans are not used to being too close to people because of their awareness of personal privacy protection. Distance, while the Chinese people's sense of privacy is not strong, whisper phenomenon occurs from time to time.
In addition, it is worth mentioning that there is also the difference between the individual and the social distance in the Chinese and Americans. Hall's study did not mention the difference in the spatial distance of gender, but from the perspective of film and TV dramas and our exposure to Americans, Americans do not have strong gender awareness in ordinary communication. Chinese have been influenced by traditional Confucianism and have always respected the traditions of men and
women. Therefore, gender is an important factor that influences the spatial distance of Chinese. In experiments with personal distance and social distance , research also pays attention to gender factors. The final data shows that heterosexual distance is generally closer than the same sex. 4.2.4 Intimate distance
Intimacy is the smallest distance between people. It can be intimate with each other. There are often physical contacts, such as holding hands, hugging and kissing, etc. It reflects the intimate and friendly relationship between the two people, usually appears in the couple, extremely close friends or brothers and sisters. In terms of social context, intimate distances are private situations and are limited to emotionally linked people. In social situations, if two people (especially the opposite sex) ) are so close, it is less decency. If the two people are the same sex, they are often close friends and are very familiar and easy-going. They can be informal and talk about anything. Between the opposite sex, it is limited to couples and lovers. In view of the definition of intimacy distance, I did two sets of experiments, one group focused on “I” and observed the distance of my closest friends with me in different scenarios. The other group observed a pair of couples in various situations.
Following are the observation process and results of the two groups of case: Case 1: Intimacy between my closest friend and me in three scenarios:
Scenario 1: Dormitory: My closest friend is the roommate of me, so the most
common communication time of us is in the dormitory. The closest distance between us can reach zero distance. We often watch videos, chat, and eat together in a bed. Because the bed in the dormitory is very small, when we sit side by side in bed, the body generally touches each other to reach zero distance. In the case of other
normal communication, the maximum distance between us will not exceed 20cm, for example, I sit in the bed, my friend sits in a chair, we will adjust the distance very close. In close proximity, we do not feel embarrassed each other, just feel comfortable and natural.
Scenario 2: On the way to the cafeteria: Every day I go to the cafeteria to eat with my best friend. After deciding the theme of the thesis, I began to observe the
distance between my friends and I, In most cases, I hold on her arm, sometimes she will hold my arm. In this situation, we reach zero distance. Sometimes, we do not touch each other, and we just walk side by side, under this situation, the distance between us will be maintained between 16-20cm, once we exceed this distance, we will feel uncomfortable.
Scenario 3: In the cafeteria public: Because the cafeteria has a large space, it is a public occasion. Sometimes the distance between us is relatively large, but in the case of a relatively long distance, the dialogue between us is generally short and does not constitute a complete communication, so in this scenario, I chose the distance between the two in most cases as a reference standard.
When I buy food in the canteen, I usually have a 30-45cm distance with my best friend. Since both of us were buying food and were in a larger public space, the
distance between us will be longer. Whether we bought or took the meal to go to the seat, we were far from each other because of some objective and subjective reasons than when we were in the private space.
Case 2: Observations of my couple friends: The observations of the couple's friends lasted for three days, and I observed their intimate distances in different locations and observed their distances with the participation of the third party and distances without the participation of third party. The couple has been hugging or holding hands in the absence of the third party, and especially at the moment of their
separation, the distance of them maintaining a zero distance. While, when there is the third party or in a public place, the couple will maintain a certain distance, usually 15-45cm, so that one of them can touch each other.
The intimate distance of proxemics theory of Hall is also 0-45cm. Therefore, it is clear that there is not much difference between Chinese and foreigners in intimate distance. Due to the special nature of closeness and the increasingly open concept of communication among Chinese college students, the intimate distance between Chinese and foreigners is extremely close. Chapter 5 Conclusion
According to all the study conducted, conclusions can be got with cultural theory. In spite all these analysis have been made, limitations still exist. In this case, suggestions on further study will also be detailed in this chapter. 5.1 Main findings
This paper focuses on the comparison of the spatial distance between Chinese and western interpersonal communication. It uses observation methods to measure the four spatial distances of Chinese people represented by the LiRen College student group, which are the public distance, social distance, personal distance and intimacy. Distance, through experiments and observations, Chinese public distance is generally 3.2m-11m, social distance is 50-120cm, personal distance is 30-80cm, intimacy
distance is 0-45cm, these data and Hall's space theory Comparing the corresponding data in China, it can be concluded that the public distance of the Chinese is far
longer than that of Americans. This phenomenon is mainly affected by the distance of power; China’s social distance and personal distance are closer than those of the United States, which is mainly affected by the The influence of individualism and collectivism in Fusted’s theory of cultural dimensions; and the intimate distance between China and the United States are similar, and the reasons for this are analyzed. The main reason is that the exchanges between various cultures are becoming closer and different. As more and more cultural fusions occur, so the distance between people is getting more and more similar. 5.2 Limitations of this study
(1) Due to time and environmental constraints, the experimental population can only be defined as a group of college students, and several cases are selected. Although all experimental variables have been considered as much as possible, the experimental results may still have certain contingencies.
(2) The experimental population of Hall is the middle class in the United States. This article studies the group of college students. There are certain differences in the objects of comparison. This difference may have a certain impact on the final experimental results.
5.4 Suggestions for further study
In the future, the research on the distance between Chinese and western
interpersonal communication spaces can focus on studying the spatial distance between more Westerners or Chinese people. The increase in the number of
experiments will make the final data more scientific and reduce errors. Moreover, studying more groups makes the concept of identity and occupation of the subjects to be weakened, and experimental data are more representative. References
Bai, S. Yuan, J. 2013. Language Tense of Space Language in the Context of
Intercultural Communication. Journal of Xidian University(Social Science Edition), 23(5):151-154. (白素，袁金月. 跨文化交际视域下空间语的语言张力[J]. 西安电子科技大学(社会科学版). 2013, 23(5):151-154.)
Hall, E .T.1956. The Silent Language.Anchor Books Hall, E .T.1976.Beyond Culture .Anchor Books
Shi, Z. 2005. Nonverbal Communication in Intercultural Communication - Differences of Time and Space between China and the United States. Journal of Dalian University of Technology ( Social Sciences), 26(4):74-77. (时真姝. 跨文化交际中的非语言行为-中美时空观差异[J]. 大连理工大学学报（社会科学版. 2005, 26(4):74-77.）
Tang, Z. Na, G. 2013. Applicability of Communicative Distance Theory in Chinese Cultural Context. Overseas English, 3:262-263. (唐胄，那贵武. 交际距离理论在中国文化语境中的适用性研究[J]. 海外英语. 2013, 3:262-263.)
Wang, J. 1998. Privacy and Body distance learning. Intercultural communication. Journal of Xi'an International Studies University, 76(2)40-43. (王军.Privacy体距学.跨文化交际[J]. 西安外国语学院学报. 1998, 76(2): 40-43.)
Wang, L. 2014. Space Language and Intercultural Communication. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 101(4):66-68. (王璐. 空间语言与跨文化交际[J]. 山东外语教学学报. 2014, 101(4):66-68.)
Wei,T. 2009. Space distance can speak. Gansu Science and Technology, 25(17):104-190. (魏婷. 空间距离也可以说话[J]. 甘肃科技. 2009, 25(17):104-190.)
Xie, L. 1998. On Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication. Journal of
中西人际交际空间距离的对比研究
