Academic journal article Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

Communication Competence of the Professionals from India & Turkey

Academic journal article Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

Communication Competence of the Professionals from India & Turkey

Article excerpt

This paper studies the communication competence of the working professionals from India and Turkey. Both these countries have fast growing young populations and rapidly developing economies. There are significant differences between Indian and Turkish respondents, however. Indians perceive that they are easy to talk to, would not argue just to prove they are right, ignore others' feelings, do not make unusual demands on their friends and think that they are effective conversationalists, likable people and flexible. Turkish respondents treat people as individuals, are good listeners; their personal relationships are cold and distant, they try to understand other people and listen to what people say to them.

Introduction

The communication competence is a multidimensional concept which has over the years constantly been changed and adapted to the context of its use. Initially, the concept of communication competence triggered varying definitions and responses from the scholars and academicians. Gradually they have narrowed down on the definition of communication competence. Lately, a consensus is built among the theoreticians on the basic content of the definition of communication competence. Initially, Chomsky (2006) identified communication competence as an ability to produce grammatically correct sentences in a language which convey the intended semantic meaning as it is. But this is the linguistic perspective on communication which is restrictive in its scope. It does not take into account how "the interlocutor perceives reality, nor the norms that govern social relationships" (Lesenciuc & Codreanu, 2012). As a result, the concept has evolved under the influence of interactionist schools and has grown beyond the realms of linguistics. Hymes (1972:284) unlike Chomsky who focused on the syntactic dimension of communication or Habermas who emphasized the semantic view, takes a pragmatic view of communication competence and defines it as a combination of knowledge participants need to make the speech in order to interact at a social level and skill set in order to be successful in communication and the right attitude that they employ by adapting themselves to concrete communication situations. Thus, the concept is redefined as the linguistic instantiation of the knowledge necessary for interaction within a given context that requires ability for the use of such knowledge. There are hosts of scholars who have, over a period of time, contributed to the definition of communication competence. For instance, Spitzberg (1988:68) defined communication competence as "the ability to interact with others with accuracy, clarity, comprehensibility, coherence, expertise, effectiveness and appropriateness". Friedrich (1994) defined communication competence as "a situational ability to set realistic and appropriate goals and to maximize their achievement by using knowledge of self, other, context, and communication theory to generate adaptive communication performances." Another definition is that the communication competence is about interpersonal communication and communication skills that specialists view as "specific components that make up or contribute to the manifestation or judgment of competence" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989:6). McCroskey (1982:5) attempts to clarify the importance of competence when he writes, "The domain of communicative competence includes learning what are the available means (available strategies), how they have been employed in various situations in the past, and being able to determine which ones have the highest probability of success in a given situation. Thus, it can be said that communicative competence is dependent on the context in which the interaction takes place. (Cody & McLaughlin, 1985; Applegate & Leichty, 1984; Rubin, 1985). Communication which is successful with one group in one situation may not be perceived as competent with a different group in another situation. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.