1

Notes in the History of Intercultural Communication

The Foreign Service Institute and the Mandate for Intercultural Training

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz

In this opening chapter, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz documents the contribution of Edward T. Hall and the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the U.S. Department of State to the establishment of the intercultural communication field. She first explicates the significance of Hall’s work in defining and developing intercultural communication as a field of study and then examines the historical context of the FSI as it shaped the theoretical contours of contemporary intercultural communication research. According to Leeds-Hurwitz, it was the demands of U.S. diplomats and the practical mission of the FSI that led Hall and his distinguished colleagues (1) to shift macro-level cultural profiling to micro-level cultural analysis for the purpose of studying everyday interactions, (2) to investigate nonverbal messages such as proxemics, time, paralanguage, and kinesics, (3) to adopt the linguistic model in intercultural education and training, and (4) to prioritize patterns and practices of communication in the study of culture and society.

Many articles discussing some aspect of intercultural communication begin with a paragraph in which the author reviews the history of the field and the major early publications. Typically, Edward Hall’s book, The Silent Language, published in 1959, is listed as the first work in the field, and often specifically mentioned as the crucial starting point.¹ The lack of attention to his motives and sources for the work is not surprising, since the young field still has little history written about it.² But no book develops without a context, and no author invents a field without a reason. This study will look at the context in which Hall’s work was produced and will describe some of the events that led to the creation of the field of intercultural communication. Using this historical record, I argue that the parameters of the field were established in response to a particular set of problems. If we are to understand why we include some topics as appropriate and do not consider other types of work, we must understand the exigencies that generated the first study of intercultural communication.³

Briefly, I will argue that intercultural communication emerged from occurrences at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the U.S. Department of State (DOS) between 1946 and 1956.⁴ Because intercultural communication grew out of the need to apply abstract anthropological concepts to the practical world of foreign service diplomats, this early focus on training American diplomats led to the later, now standard use of intercultural communication training.⁵ Only recently (beginning with Gudykunst, 1983) has intercultural communication begun to discuss theoretical approaches; initially the concepts were accompanied only by examples, not by an elaboration of theory.⁶ In their first writings on the subject Hall (1959) and Hall and Whyte (1960) made no explicit attempt to create a new academic field with a novel research tradition (Winkin, 1984, p. 17). Establishing a new academic field was, rather, a secondary phase, based on Hall’s early attempt to translate anthropological insights into cultural differences to an audience that wanted immediate and practical applications, not research studies.

My discussion offers four major arguments: first, that Hall’s work was important to the development of the field of intercultural communication; second, that Hall’s work originated in and was shaped by the specific context of the FSI; third, that this context resulted in a number of crucial decisions, which were continued by later researchers; and fourth, that these decisions illuminate some features of the contemporary literature. Assuming that the readers of this article will be most familiar with the contemporary literature, my effort will focus upon illuminating the historical context which set the stage for the current practices in the field.

The following specific connections between the work of Hall (and others) at the FSI and current intercultural communication research will be demonstrated:

1. Instead of the traditional anthropological focus on a single culture at a time, or at best, a comparison of two, Hall responded to the critique of his foreign service students by stressing interaction between members of different cultures. Hall is most explicit about this in a publication written jointly with William Foote Whyte:

   In the past, anthropologists have been primarily concerned with the internal pattern of a given culture. In giving attention to intercultural problems, they have examined the impact of one culture upon another. Very little attention has been given to the actual communication process between representatives of different cultures.

   (Hall & Whyte, 1960, p. 12)

   This shift from viewing cultures one at a time to studying interactions between members of different cultures has been enormously influential on the study of intercultural communication and is what most completely defines the field today.⁷

2. Hall narrowed the focus of study from culture as a general concept (macroanalysis) to smaller units within culture (microanalysis). This occurred in response to a particular problem: the students in the FSI classes had no interest in generalizations or specific examples that applied to countries other than the ones to which they were assigned; they wanted concrete, immediately useful, details provided to them before they left the US, and they thought it appropriate that the anthropologists involved in their training should focus their energy on this level of culture.⁸ Hall, eventually agreeing that the complaints of his students were justified, began the move from a focus on the entire culture to specific small moments of interaction.
3. Hall enlarged the concept of culture to include the study of communication; he viewed much of his work as an extension of anthropological insight to a new topic, interaction between members of two or more different cultures. Those who study intercultural communication continue to use the concepts taken from anthropology in the 1940s and 1950s (culture, ethnocentrism, etc.), but this cross-fertilization moved primarily in one direction: now only a few anthropologists study proxemics, time, kinesics or paralanguage, or focus on interactions between members of different cultures.⁹ Although anthropology and intercultural communication were once closely allied, the two fields have grown apart as reflected in the shift from the qualitative methods of anthropology to the quantitative methods of communication generally used in intercultural communication today and in the recent surge of interest in applying traditional American communication theories to intercultural contexts.¹⁰ While intercultural communication sprang from anthropological insights, it has been on its own for some thirty years, and some shift in focus was predictable.¹¹
4. Implicit in Hall’s work is the view that communication is patterned, learned, and analyzable, just as culture had been previously described. (Others later stated these insights more explicitly, but he implies them and should be given some credit for the ideas.) Researchers today make the same assumptions about communication. Without these assumptions, we could not have the abstract theorizing about intercultural communication that now marks the field.
5. Hall decided that the majority of information potentially available about a culture was not really essential in situations of face-to-face interaction with members of that culture: only a small percentage of the total need be known. Thus he delineated several types of micro-cultural behavior as the focus of study: tone of voice, gestures, time, and spatial relationships. That intercultural research still pays extensive attention to these types of interaction over many other possibilities is a tribute to the influence of his work.
6. Several aspects of the training established by Hall are accepted as part of the repertoire of training procedures used today: (a) Hall created teaching materials out of experiences abroad which students in the training sessions were willing to provide; (b) Hall encouraged his students to meet with foreign nationals as part of the preparation for a trip abroad, as one way to increase their knowledge of other cultures; and (c) Hall presented his insights as a beginning for his students, but assumed they would continue the learning process once they arrived at their destination.
7. Hall and his colleagues at FSI are responsible for the use of descriptive linguistics as the basic model for intercultural communication, a model which still implicitly serves as the basis for much current research. Explicit discussion of linguistic terminology is currently enjoying a renaissance through attention to what are now termed the “etic” and “emic” approaches to intercultural communication.
8. Hall expanded his audience beyond foreign diplomats to include all those involved in international business, today one of the largest markets for intercultural training. Intercultural communication continues to serve the function of training Americans to go abroad, although it has grown substantially beyond this initial mission to include such areas as the training of foreign students, recent immigrants, and teachers who work with students of different cultural backgrounds; it has established a university base now, and many practitioners engage in research, as well as teaching large numbers of undergraduate students the basics of an intercultural communication approach.

The innovations listed here were picked up by the fledgling field of communication, and they were crucial in the establishment of the area known as intercultural communication. They are today hallmarks of intercultural communication.

Background: The Foreign Service Institute

The story of intercultural communication begins at the Foreign Service Institute.¹² In the 1940s many persons recognized that American diplomats were not fully effective abroad, since they often did not speak the language and usually knew little of the host culture. After World War II Americans began to reevaluate their knowledge and understanding of other countries, both in terms of their languages and in terms of their cultural assumptions.¹³ Along with general concern about the ability of Americans to interact with foreign nationals, the training and knowledge of American diplomats were issues, since deficiencies in those areas have substantial repercussions. In 1946 Congress passed the Foreign Service Act, which reorganized the Foreign Service, and established a Foreign Service Institute to provide both initial training and in-service training on a regular basis throughout the careers of Foreign Service Officers and other staff members.¹⁴

As one part of the preparation of the bill, in 1945 the American Foreign Service Journal sponsored a contest for ideas to improve the training program of the Foreign Service; Foreign Service personnel from around the world contributed essays. Those judged to be the best were published as a series of articles in the journal, and the comments are fascinating. Many themes recur, among them the recommendation for better language training. Because American representatives abroad were often not well trained in foreign languages, many contributors argued that they would be more successful if they had fluency in at least one language other than English.¹⁵ Many authors also urged fuller education about the history, political structure, economics, and international relations with the United States, not only of the country to which the diplomat would be sent, but of the entire geographic region.¹⁶

About the same time, a series of articles not submitted for the contest, but generally addressing the issue of change in the Foreign Service, was published. One of these specifically criticized the generally limited language fluency in the foreign service and highlighted the need for individuals who knew more than basic grammar and who could converse in a language other than English (Pappano, 1946). In an unpublished history of the beginnings of FSI, Boswell points out that “Prior to 1946 the American Foreign Service placed less emphasis on language qualifications for entry than any other nation’s foreign service” (1948, p. 38). He attributed the deficiency to the poor language training available in American schools.

One factor which changed attitudes towards language training in the Foreign Service was the extensive language training program begun by the Army during World War II, which demonstrated the feasibility of language training on a large scale. Little excuse remained for Foreign Service diplomats to have inadequate language skills (Boswell, 1948, p. 38).

In 1939 Mortimer Graves, then the Executive Secretary of the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), reasoned that linguists who were capable of analyzing Native American Indian languages (often funded through ACLS grants) should be able to analyze other, perhaps more politically useful, languages. Convinced that world-wide conflict was inevitable, he obtained funding from the Rockefeller Foundation to put a small group of linguists to work. Mary Haas, the first hired, was asked to analyze Thai from native speakers, to prepare basic teaching materials, and then to teach a group of students the language, combining the spoken words of native speakers with the written materials she had prepared (Cowan, 1975, 1987; see also Smith, 1946, and Murray, 1983, pp. 113–120).

When the United States formally entered World War II, Graves brought J. Milton Cowan to Washington; together they organized the linguists to serve the war effort through what became known as the Intensive Language Program (ILP). Those who had been inducted served on the military side of the project, and those who had not participated as civilians through the ACLS. Henry Lee Smith, Jr., who was trained as a linguist, was in the Army Reserves at the time; he was recalled to active duty and put in charge of the military side (Cowan, 1975; Maddox, 1949).

The method, developed as the “linguistic method” of language training, became “the Army method.” Instead of the traditional focus on learning to read and write a language and on grammar as the key to a language, the method emphasized appropriate use of the spoken language, an innovative approach. Because the classroom teacher was a native speaker, students heard the idiomatic usage and pronunciation. These native speakers were under the close supervision of professional linguists, who worked with them on consistent organization of the materials. Ideally the material was organized as a series of natural speech situations: asking directions, going shopping, finding housing, etc. Through this division of labor, a small number of linguists supervised a large number of native speakers, and dozens of languages could be taught simultaneously with a minimum of full-time staff members (Smith, 1946).

Initially the Army program, formally one part of the larger Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), was to serve 1,500 of the brightest and most qualified army recruits. However, believing that having a larger number of soldiers qualified to speak a variety of languages was desirable, officials increased the number of participants to 15,000. Not all of the techniques that had been established for 1,500 transferred easily to the larger group but, on the whole, the program was remarkably effective (see Cowan, 1975). The primary problem with ASTP was not in the training, but in the follow-through. For various reasons, soldiers trained to speak particular languages were assigned randomly and only rarely were able to use their linguistic training.¹⁷

All of these efforts came together when the Foreign Service Institute was officially established. Because of the experience within an Army setting and due in part to the widespread agreement of a need for language training within the Foreign Service, FSI was immediately able to establish a language training program that had already been developed, tested, and proven effective. Frank Hopkins, the first Director of FSI, had studied linguistics and anthropology while at Harvard and had been impressed there with the work of Clyde Kluckhohn. “Hopkins was the linchpin in recruiting Haxie [Henry Lee] Smith and in the bringing of Social Science into FSI” (Hall, personal correspondence). Smith moved from the Army, where he had been serving as Director of the Language School, to a position as Director of Language Studies in the Division of Training Services for the Foreign Service in 1946; when the new Foreign Service Institute was formally established in 1947, he was made director of the School of Languages, one of the four schools established within FSI.¹⁸ Smith was later responsible for recruiting well-known linguist George L. Trager into the School of Languages, as well as Edward Kennard, an anthropologist who ran the School of Area Studies (Hall, personal correspondence). Bringing to FSI the knowledge of how to run a linguistically-based language training program, Smith adapted his experience to a new audience.

Smith maintained the model of native speakers in the classroom, combined with trained linguists available to prepare additional written materials where these were needed, although much of this work had already been prepared under ILP and ASTP auspices. The linguists could also work occasionally with the students. For the classes in descriptive linguistics, linguists such as Trager prepared the materials.¹⁹

Trager summarized the basic approach quite well in this statement, described as the efforts of the entire group working together:

Two important assumptions are apparent here: first, that the analysis of culture was dependent upon a prior linguistic model; and second, that linguistic meaning comes not from words alone but from a combination of the linguistic and what was then termed the “metalinguistic” levels. Both ideas are basic to Hall’s 1959 book; both have influenced the contemporary field of intercultural communication.

The other members of the group to which Trager refers were: John M. Echols, Charles A. Ferguson, Carleton T. Hodge, Charles F. Hockett, Edward A. Kennard, Henry Hoenigswald, and John Kepke.²⁰ Trager, Ferguson, and Hodge all had the advantage of having worked previously with Smith within the Army program. Edward Hall came into the group later than the others, in 1951, and frequently served a different administrative structure, although he was part of the FSI staff, and did participate in most of the orientation programs for Foreign Service personnel. In addition to learning how to speak a particular language, the students attended a seminar on general linguistics and another on discussing general principles for analyzing human societies (Maddox, 1949). There Hall found his role, working to ensure that the students obtained general anthropological training to complement their specific language training. Shortly before Hall’s arrival, Edward Kennard published an article describing the role of anthropology at the FSI, in which he mentions developing the course, “Understanding Foreign Peoples,” to combine anthropological insights with actual Foreign Service experiences (Kennard, 1948).

Although a full member of the FSI staff with the rank of professor, Hall was under a different administrative branch of the Department of State, the Technical Cooperation Authority (TCA) also widely referred to as Point IV (Hall, personal correspondence). He worked closely with the linguists and anthropologists at FSI from 1951 to 1955 to provide the training TCA required, since no separate staff was available (Hall, 1956, p. 4). A contemporary described TCA as “a stepchild in the organization [FSI]” for various reasons, a fact that did not facilitate its work (Gordon, 1955).²¹ Hall points out that FSI acquired a reputation for having a large number of anthropologists.²² Later problems were attributed to the inappropriate numbers of anthropologists on staff, and two new directors were sent into the organization with orders to “get rid of the anthropologists” (Hall, 1956, p. 5). Hall writes in detail about the administrative problems that academics in government faced: many of them could not use the proper procedures effectively, seeing them as unnecessary interference. Thus, they spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get their work done, and struggling to offer the training they were hired to provide (Hall, 1955). The basic four-week training course that Hall and the others offered to Point IV technicians was a modified version of the training given to foreign service personnel, including beginning instruction in the language of the country of assignment, orientation to the mission and its philosophy, limited study of the country and area, and a small amount of time devoted to anthropological and linguistic generalizations, including culture as a concept, change as a process, and common American assumptions (Hall, 1955, p. 6).

Microcultural Analysis

The idea of culture, one of the central concepts taught in the anthropology seminars, was, and still is, one of the cornerstones of intercultural communication. Today, of course, the notion that each group of people has what can be described as a unique culture, consisting of traditional ways of doing things, traditional objects, oral traditions, and belief systems, is taken for granted. In the 1940s and 1950s this was a newer concept, requiring extensive discussion. Much to the astonishment of the anthropologists, many participants in the seminars viewed the concept itself as vague and viewed discussing it as a waste of time; instead, they wanted concrete information about how to interact with persons in the specific culture to which they were being sent. As Hall later wrote, “There seemed to be no ‘practical’ value attached to either what the anthropologist did or what he made of his discoveries” (1959, p. 32). Faced with this reaction, Hall resolved to focus on what he termed microcultural analysis: on tone of voice, gestures, time, and spatial relationships as aspects of communication (1956, p. 10). These smaller units of a culture, having obvious and immediate impact on interaction between members of different cultures, were very attractive to the foreign service personnel. Hall writes: “Microcultural analysis, when used, seems to be much more acceptable and more readily handled by the layman” (1956, p. 10). Thus, the focus of his training efforts gradually became all those parts of culture which are learned and used without conscious notice. By the time he published The Silent Language, this emphasis on aspects of interaction generally ignored by others was even more obvious: “If this book has a message it is that we must learn to understand the ‘out-of-awareness’ aspects of communication. We must never assume that we are fully aware of what we communicate to someone else” (1959, p. 38).

Sometimes Hall termed these discussions “informal culture,” which he contrasts with “formal culture,” defined as traditional parts of knowledge, and “technical culture,” the most explicit elements of knowledge, and those generally associated with particular sciences or technologies (1959, pp. 63–91, especially the chart on p. 92; see also 1960a, p. 158). In presenting this scheme, Hall emphasized that although lay persons assumed that informal culture has no rules or patterns governing it, the job of the anthropologist was to prove otherwise. At one time he explained informal culture through an extended description of the difference between what we assume schools are supposed to teach students, the formal and technical, and what they really teach, the informal. In the latter category he included: all things are subservient to time; bureaucracies are real; what happens in the classroom is a game, and the teachers set the rule; and the teacher’s primary mission is to keep order (Hall, 1971, pp. 230–231).²³

While discussing the complexity of the cultural systems governing interaction, Hall provides a clear statement of culture as a system of patterns which must be learned:

The extension from this view of culture to assuming that communication, as culture’s counterpart, is equally patterned, learned, and analyzable is implicit in Hall’s work, although others, writing later, made the point explicitly.²⁴ These assumptions about culture and communication and the ways in which they are similar lie at the heart of much current research in intercultural communication; Hall’s influence here is crucial. Hall views culture as communication, and others after him have had to come to terms with the ways in which the two overlap.

For Hall, the practical implication of this theoretical extension of culture into communication was the feasibility of training those going overseas to attend deliberately to the more subtle aspects of interaction and to understand more fully the implications of their own behavior for others. Hall notes that the beginnings of his awareness of cultural impact on behavior occurred through observing his own interactions with others. While preparing the orientation materials for Americans going overseas, he was surrounded by people who represented many of the major languages and cultures of the world, some of whom would stop by his office to visit. “I would find myself impelled (as though pulled by hidden strings) to hold myself, sit, respond, and listen in quite different ways. I noted that when I was with Germans I would (without thinking) hold myself stiffly, while with Latin Americans I would be caught up and involved” (1969, p. 379). It was exactly this sort of awareness of behavior that he then tried to foster in others. His instruction stressed understanding that others do not necessarily interpret our behavior as we do nor as we expect them to. Unlike typical anthropology students, the students in these classes were unwilling to arrive in a culture and simply observe interaction for several months before trying to draw conclusions as to what was occurring. In response, Hall gradually concluded that the majority of information potentially available about a culture was not really essential in situations of face-to-face interaction with members of that culture: only a small percentage of the total need be known, although that portion was critical.²⁵

One problem in implementing this insight was the dearth of information at the level of micro-cultural analysis. Hall had to create his own materials, primarily using details about experiences abroad which students in the training sessions were willing to provide. In addition, Hall was able to travel abroad to check the effectiveness of his program; he specifically listened to the problems Americans were having once they arrived at their destinations (E. Hall, 1976, p. 68). These stories served as an additional resource for improving training.²⁶

In his earliest articles Hall already demonstrated what was to become a mark of his approach: providing a few generalizations, along with a large number of specific examples documenting interaction differences between members of different cultures. His students at FSI encouraged this approach, because they would tolerate only a few theoretical statements, although they paid attention to concrete details of real occurrences and were able to learn from them by drawing their own generalizations. This style also served him well with a broader audience, although scholars within intercultural communication, who hope for more extensive, less anecdotal, perhaps more traditionally academic, studies, sometimes criticize it. As late as 1979 Nwankwo suggested that most intercultural communication instructors “focus on the identification of communication barriers and on description and application rather than theory-building” (1979, p. 329). This can be attributed largely to the origins of the field as a practical tool for training diplomats rather than as discipline based within a university setting, where the focus would have been on abstract theorizing. By 1983 this had changed with the publication of a volume specifically devoted to theories within intercultural communication (Gudykunst, 1983).

Hall notes that the four weeks total training time for the general sessions as well as specific language training only permitted an orienting of students; he saw four months as ideal. A series of shortcuts designed to maximize the amount of learning possible despite a lack of available teaching time were used to make the endeavor feasible. For example, he mentions the need to put Americans in touch with someone from the local culture with the task of discovering how many times they had to meet with someone in the country before they could begin official business. Through such assignments, Americans destined for the Middle East learned not to pursue business too quickly (Friedman, 1979, p. 50).²⁷ Intercultural communication training still takes this approach of providing basic orientation to some problems that occur in intercultural interaction, leaving the balance of the learning to the student.

Proxemics, Time, Paralanguage, Kinesics

Major early statements on proxemics and nonverbal communication developed out of the training program at the Foreign Service Institute.²⁸ In trying to adapt anthropological concepts for presentation to a new audience, Hall and the others established a whole new series of concepts: Hall’s proxemics and related discussions of the use of time, occasionally called chronemics, Trager’s paralanguage, and Birdwhistell’s kinesics, were all initially begun by the group of linguists and anthropologists who were involved in the training courses presented through FSI. These areas are today standard parts of courses on intercultural communication and of most shorter training sessions, as well as standard parts of much research in other areas of communication.

Not until 1963 did Hall separate his work on cultural differences in use of space from the other aspects of microcultural analysis, and give it the name now popular, “proxemics.” He reported having considered a series of other possible labels, including: “topology,” “chaology,” the study of empty space, “oriology,” the study of boundaries, “choriology,” the study of organized space. But he decided that proxemics was most descriptive (1963a, p. 422). Since the widespread adoption of a new field of study is often delayed until a name has been chosen, this choice of a name was critical. Later, in 1972, he reunited the various aspects of nonverbal communication, saying “Proxemics represents one of several such out-of-awareness systems which fall within the general rubric paracommunication” (1972, p. 274).²⁹ “Paracommunication,” not a term generally used in the field then or now, served as one of a series of ways of referring to the entire complex of what are today more generally termed nonverbal “channels” of communication. Other early terms included Trager’s “metalinguistics,” again not the term of choice today.

The materials Trager wrote while at FSI between 1948 and 1953 allude to metalinguistics and the importance of extending the study of linguistics to more than words (Trager, 1950). Originally, all nonverbal communication was categorized under the rubric “metalinguistics,” and all was viewed as being potentially of equal interest to linguists. Trager saw no reason for linguists to limit themselves to the study of language, arguing that nonverbal behaviors had an influence both on language choice and on how such choices were interpreted by participants in an interaction. Since virtually no one else was studying nonverbal communication at the time, there was little competition, and no one to complain if Trager and the others crossed the boundary between language and other aspects of culture and/or communication to “trespass” on territory covered in other disciplines. Although Trager’s seminal article on paralanguage was not published until 1958, after research experience with The Natural History of an Interview team, among other influences (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1987), his position on the significance of that research was established while he was at FSI, as a direct result of the effort to put linguistic generalizations into a form which diplomats would be able to appreciate and put to immediate use.

Trager not only published general statements on the importance of metalinguistics as an extension of language study and the specific programmatic statement for research in paralanguage, but he was also the group member most directly involved in Hall’s writings. In all of his early publications, Hall credits Trager as a collaborator.³⁰ The draft for The Silent Language was actually published jointly, as The Analysis of Culture.³¹ This jointly authored text was issued only as a prepublication draft, by FSI in 1953, although at various times Hall commented that it was to be published shortly.³² Trager later decided it was not the best possible analysis, commenting in 1971: “No other edition ever published; no published criticism or discussion. GLT has completely replaced this scheme by another” (F. Trager, 1971, p. 18). His assessment reflects his effort to refine his work rather than substantive disagreements with the content of the work. In a parallel fashion, Hall also revised his understandings of intercultural communication as the years went by. He noted “My own description (Hall 1959) does not deviate in any significant degree from the joint version. However, I have come to feel that it was somewhat oversimplified and this I shall attempt to correct” (1964b, p. 155).³³ In The Silent Language Hall sometimes uses the plural first person form and refers often to an idea or a problem as being a joint effort between himself and Trager (see pp. 13, 36, 66, 97, 120, 171, 176). In later publications Trager’s role has become significantly reduced, though still noticeable.³⁴

Since one of Hall’s major statements about his work was published in Current Anthropology and accorded the CA treatment (being subjected to critique by peers, their comments published with the article), Trager had the opportunity to comment in print on the development of the work. After objecting to a rather minor linguistic point (Hockett’s comment that language has the characteristic of duality, which he feels Hall has misunderstood and consequently misused), he adds that he is able to “commend this article unreservedly” (1968, p. 105).³⁵ As this statement shows, and as Hall confirms, any disagreements were minor (Hall, personal correspondence).

Although Ray L. Birdwhistell was at FSI only during the summer of 1952, his publication of Introduction to Kinesics through FSI established his reputation as the expert in that area of communication. In spite of his brief tenure, discussion at FSI during the time, particularly the need to focus attention on a microanalytic level, influenced his work. Like Trager he was later a part of The Natural History of an Interview team and developed his early insights in that context, adapting them to a new audience of psychiatrists. As with the study of proxemics, time, and paralanguage, kinesics obviously can be and now is fruitfully applied to almost any context of interaction. But all four originated with a particular context in mind, a context which shaped the way they developed.

My concern here is not to distinguish between the specific contributions of each member of the group at FSI, but rather to stress the importance of understanding that the influential work produced at FSI was partly due to the particular combination of talents drawn together at one time and place for a single purpose. As the person most immediately involved with Hall’s work, Trager merited the title of co-author on the original major publication, but the presence of other scholars was equally significant since their ideas contributed to the whole. Although it is customary to attribute specific ideas to individual writers, sometimes an unusually fortuitous combination of individuals, brought together for the purposes of a specific research agenda, can encourage the development of new insights by all. Because he is the author of most of the early work on intercultural communication, giving Hall sole credit for the ideas is easy. However, the catalyst of the particular context, and informal discussions with particular individuals available, may well have been crucial to his thinking.³⁶

The Linguistic Model

Modeling paralanguage, kinesics, and proxemics after the analysis of language provided by descriptive linguistics was a deliberate attempt to make at least some aspects of culture as readily available to verbalization, and as readily taught, as language. Linguistics in the 1940s had acquired the reputation of being the most “scientific” of the social and behavioral sciences, and the FSI group wanted anthropology to be equally scientific. That two of the most influential descriptive linguists of the 1950s, Smith and Trager, were part of the group of peers Hall found at FSI was obviously a contributing factor. Not only did linguistics as a whole have the reputation of being scientific, but representatives were available daily and influenced Hall’s ideas as they developed. Hall emphasized that the material he included in microcultural analysis was intended to be learned “in much the same way that language is learned” (1956, p. 10), eventually making explicit the connection between linguistic analysis and cultural analysis: “Language is the most technical of the message systems. It is used as a model for the analysis of the others” (1959, p. 38). In later writings he related this parallel more specifically to microcultural analysis:

Occasionally Hall has been explicit about why he saw the linguistic model as a particularly useful one, as when he specifically listed the strengths of linguistics: “it has distinguished between etic and emic events … and has been able to handle greater and greater complexity” (Hall 1964b, p. 155). He wished to utilize these strengths in intercultural communication. If anything, the linguistic model is even more important today to intercultural communication research, as the concepts of “etic” and “emic,” in a slightly adapted form, are undergoing a strong resurgence as key terms in the field.

For many of the same reasons that prompted Hall to utilize the model of descriptive linguistics in developing proxemics, Trager and Birdwhistell used descriptive linguistics as their model in developing paralanguage and kinesics. Trager’s interest in paralanguage was an extension of his interest in language; he considered it obvious that paralanguage as a field of study would closely parallel formal linguistic analysis of language (Trager, 1958). Although the majority of his early work focused on a rather abstract level of analysis, developing the categories to be used in studying paralinguistic behavior, he subsequently published a description of paralinguistic behavior for a Native American language, Taos (Trager, 1960). Later authors described in detail the problems that divergent paralinguistic norms can cause when members of different cultures attempt to interact (such as Gumperz, 1982), the application of the topic most directly relevant to the study of intercultural communication. Birdwhistell has been equally explicit about the deliberate use of descriptive linguistics as the model for kinesic analysis in his outlines of the historical development of kinesics, and about the influence of linguists such as Trager and Smith on his ideas (Birdwhistell, 1952, 1968b, 1970). Hall was responsible for recommending to Kennard that Birdwhistell be brought into the FSI group; his intention was to permit him to work with the linguists there in refining his early model of kinesics (Hall, personal correspondence).

In addition to the ready and appropriate model linguistics provided for analysis of human symbolic behavior, Hall points out that the linguists at FSI were more successful in their efforts to teach language than the anthropologists were in their efforts to teach culture and adds that this disparity led to direct comparisons of the methodologies of the two fields (1960b, p. 118). “Trager and Smith thought that if language is a part of culture, and can be taught so that people speak with little or no accent, why would it not be possible to analyze the rest of culture in such a way so that people could learn by doing and thereby remove the accent from their behavior?” (Hall 1960a, pp. 157–158). This provided yet another reason to use a linguistic model.

Culture and Communication

One goal of Hall’s work was to extend the anthropological view of culture to include communication.³⁷ At the time anthropologists paid attention to large cultural systems (e.g., economics or kinship) only and did not document directly interaction patterns in any detail.³⁸ Statements relating culture and communication abound in his work; both The Silent Language and The Hidden Dimension have entire chapters devoted to the subject. In the early work, culture is seen as primary, communication as secondary, since it is only one aspect of culture. In the later work, Hall suggests “culture is basically a communicative process” (1968, p. 89), thus reversing the order: communication is now viewed as primary. In light of this, it is important to note that The Silent Language was proposed as the first presentation of “the complete theory of culture as communication” (1959, p. 41), not as the establishment of a new field to be called intercultural communication, not even as an outline of proxemics and/or the study of time as new foci for research.

Much of Hall’s work is explicit about citing anthropological precedents, from the grandfather of American anthropology, Franz Boas (who “laid the foundation of the view which I hold that communication constitutes the core of culture and indeed of life itself”; 1966, p. 1) to the most significant of the early American linguists: Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, and Benjamin Lee Whorf (see 1966, pp. 1–2). Indeed, Whorf’s essays were first gathered together and published by FSI during Hall’s tenure there (Whorf, 1952). Whorf’s influence on Hall’s work is obvious in The Silent Language, where he is called “one of the first to speak technically about the implications of differences which influence the way in which man experiences the universe” (p. 113). In The Hidden Dimension, Hall specifically says: “The thesis of this book and of The Silent Language, which preceded it, is that the principles laid down by Whorf and his fellow linguists in relation to language apply to the rest of human behavior as well—in fact to all culture” (1966, p. 2; see also Hall, 1984, p. 36).³⁹

The changing connections between intercultural communication and anthropology merit explicit comment. Culture as a concept had been and still is traditionally the domain of anthropology. Yet, for a variety of reasons, many of them political and bureaucratic in nature, anthropologists were no longer a part of FSI after the late 1950s. For other reasons relevant to disciplinary boundaries in American universities, anthropologists are not generally involved in intercultural communication as currently taught, whether as a full course or as a workshop.⁴⁰

Hall’s first publication on intercultural communication, in 1955, was titled “The Anthropology of Manners,” not “proxemics” or “the silent language,” and not “intercultural communication.” He suggests that:

Hall’s focus on establishing a “frame of reference” that would enable one to observe better and that would help us to discover the significant differences in manners (or, as more commonly described today, interaction styles), has remained important in the field. His emphasis on how much is still to be discovered, rather than what had already been learned, was an appropriate emphasis for a new field. His statement also illustrates how Hall clearly positioned his new field in relation to the discipline of anthropology, not communication. Only in looking back on the past thirty years of work do we know communication would provide an intellectual home to the new field rather than anthropology; in the 1950s there was no way to predict its future course. My suggestion is not that anthropology in some way abandoned intercultural communication, but that the expanding field of communication turned out to be an appropriate “foster home” for the new research into intercultural interaction, readily accepting the “infant” as a member of its extended “family.”

Anthropology originally addressed an academic audience, along with a smaller group in various government agencies. The original audience of intercultural communication was the reverse: primarily a sector of government (foreign service officers) with a small audience among academics. But this division changed over time. Intercultural communication today addresses a varied audience: Americans who travel for pleasure or business or school as well as foreign nationals coming to this country for any of the same reasons. Hall himself made this shift away from the original audience of diplomats. In at least one article, Hall (1960) drew explicit connections between his work with diplomats and what has become one of the largest groups interested in the results of intercultural communication research and training: international business. The rationale for this new, broader audience assumed that the same wide variety of factors that played a role in diplomatic interactions must play an equal role in business.⁴¹ Even in this early application, Hall saw the value of the case study approach; a major section of his article describes how a business deal “soured” due to cultural differences in timing, use of space, etc. Comparable case studies still abound in intercultural communication training today as one of the best ways to provide participants concrete examples of problems caused by cultural differences in communication patterns.⁴²

Conclusion

FSI hired some of the best linguists and anthropologists of the day to train members of the Foreign Service. These academics had to adapt their knowledge for the new audience in a variety of ways; this adaptation led to new ideas about their work and to a burst of creativity in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The need to teach immediately practical aspects of their subject led to the study of small elements of culture, rather than the traditional topics anthropologists taught their college students. This shift, in turn, led to the creation of new fields of research, all centered on the role of nonverbal communication in social interaction: proxemics, time, kinesics, para-language. Since the academics who had been assembled were not adept at nor interested in the political maneuvering necessary to survive in the federal bureaucracy, the group was disbanded in the mid-1950s. But by that time their role in establishing what is now known as the field of intercultural communication had been completed and their influence assured.

Hall’s writings have been instrumental in the development of intercultural communication as it is currently practiced; further, since Hall’s approach was created in response to the context provided by the FSI, the field today owes much to the explicit requests of a small group of diplomats in the 1940s and 1950s for a way to apply general anthropological insights to specific problems of international discourse. Intercultural communication as a field obviously has changed in many ways over the past forty years, and no doubt will continue to change; understanding the roots of our own discipline and the reasons for some of the decisions that have come to be accepted as doctrine can only increase our ability to deliberately shape it to meet future needs.

Notes

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz wishes to thank Ray Birdwhistell, J. Milton Cowan, Edward T. Hall, Charles F. Hockett, Steve Murray, and Yves Winkin for their comments and suggestions, as well as William Bennett, of the FSI Library, and William Turley, of the Office of Personnel, DOS, for archival assistance.

1.For example, Condon calls it “the work with which many scholars credit the current interest in intercultural communication studies” (1981, p. 255); see also Dodd (1982, p. 7); Gudykunst (1985); Singer (1987, p. 85); and Klopf (1987, p. 17). Although it is generally acknowledged that Hall (1959) includes the first use of the phrase “intercultural communication,” in his earlier writings Hall used several variants of the phrase (“intercultural tensions” and “inter-cultural problems” in Hall, 1950, clearly refer to the same topic, for example). Hall was not, however, the first to use the term “intercultural” (for an earlier usage, see Benedict, 1941).

2.I note with pleasure several recent exceptions to this rule, although their focus is mass communication rather than intercultural (Robinson, 1988; Rowland, 1988).

3.Of course, it would be possible to extend the story to earlier times, looking for instance at Mead’s work with the American/British problems that arose during wartime interactions (Mead, 1948a), or Benedict’s work with the Bureau for Intercultural Education in the 1930s to promote cultural diversity in American schools (Benedict, 1943; Modell, 1983, pp. 266–267), or the better known “culture at a distance” research with which both were involved during World War II, through the Institute for Intercultural Studies (Mead, 1943; Benedict, 1946), along with others such as Gregory Bateson, Geoffrey Gorer, and Rhoda Metraux. But my interest here is not in describing the entire history of intercultural communication, only one critical part of it. (Future exploration of the influence any and all of this earlier research had on Hall’s work would be particularly interesting.)

4.Interestingly, in a list of the audiences for their recent introductory text on intercultural communication, Gudykunst and Kim begin with Foreign Service Officers (1984, p. v). The influence of the early work at FSI has clearly been retained even today.

5.A comparable argument about the influence of the early institutionalization of mass media studies (occurring at approximately the same time period, shortly after World War II) on assumptions of what has constituted appropriate research questions in mass media ever since is presented in Rowland (1988, pp. 131–133).

6.As Winkin points out: “L’expression ‘communication interculturelle’ est avancée sans élaboration théorique. Seuls de très nombreux exemples soutiennent le terme.” [“The expression ‘intercultural communication’ was advanced without theoretical elaboration. Only very numerous examples accompanied the term.”] (1984, p. 17).

7.See Gudykunst (1987) for an elaboration of the various sub-subfields that are currently a part of intercultural communication; the description here matches what he calls “intercultural communication” proper, and is to be differentiated from “cross-cultural communication,” which is now to be reserved for comparisons of interaction styles between cultures. It would simplify matters if everyone were to adopt Gudykunst’s terms and use them consistently from now on. However, since these distinctions had not been made previously, it would be unfair to either assume or require that researchers in the past use the terms in the ways he recommends.

8.As Hall reports, “Foreign Service officers in particular used to take great delight in saying that what the anthropologists told them about working with the Navajo didn’t do them much good, for we didn’t have an embassy on the Navajo reservation” (1959, p. 36).

9.Certainly linguistic anthropologists such as John Gumperz maintain a separate but comparable tradition of studying cultural (mis)communication patterns, often focusing on paralinguistic differences between ethnic groups (see Gumperz, 1982), but this research has its own history and pays little attention to the work done in intercultural communication today.

10.As examples, see Cronen and Shuter (1983) for a discussion of applying research on relationship development; Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) for extending research in interpersonal communication to take into account intercultural contexts; Starosta (1984) for an application of rhetorical approaches to intercultural communication.

11.At the same time, it should be noted that there are very recent calls within intercultural communication for someone to do good qualitative research. For example, see the comment by Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, that “there is a need for solid ‘qualitative’ research across cultures. Cross-cultural qualitative inquiry, however, is still in its infancy” (1988, p. 231). It may be that the field is changing again, perhaps now moving closer to its original anthropological roots in choice of acceptable methodologies.

12.For a more general picture of FSI, see Maddox (1947a, 1947b), and articles in Fortune Magazine (Anonymous, 1946a) and Time (Anonymous, 1947) for details contemporary with the story told here; Barnes and Morgan (1961); Blancké (1969); and Steigman (1985) provide more current histories.

13.For further comments along these lines within the intercultural literature, see Dodd (1982, pp. 5–7).

14.See Harrington (1946) and Lampson (1946) for descriptions of the legislation and the Institute it established; an unidentified author also provided the basic outline of the legislation as soon as it was passed, in “The Principal Features of the Foreign Service Act of 1946” (Anonymous, 1946b), available at the FSI library.

15.The case for foreign language training in the Foreign Service needed to be made more than once (see Chadbourne, 1958; Lorenz, 1959, for Congressional testimony on the topic). Some authors argued as late as 1960 that language ability was only a minor criterion for success as a diplomat. One author even went so far as to suggest: “Selecting, training and promoting Foreign Service officers on the basis of foreign language skill [something that was often mentioned, but never done] is a little like picking chorus girls for moles and dimples. From the balcony it doesn’t matter” (Bradford, 1960, p. 25). Discussion of the topic can be found in Anonymous (1956), an unsigned editorial; Poullada and Poullada (1957); Barnes (1962); Strom (1962); and Nadler (1965).

16.See Jester (1945); Chapin (1945); Gantenbein (1945); and McClintock (1945) for examples of such comments.

17.See Keefer (1988) for a history of the larger ASTP program based on the self-reports of those who participated. Not surprisingly it is primarily negative in tone, since many of those who were taught particular skills were not permitted to use those skills, but were then shipped off to wherever the Army needed them the most, regardless of training. This was true for those given language training as well as for other subjects.

18.For details of the new program and how it was designed to work, as well as extensive historical background, see Jester and Smith (1946); Smith (1946); Maddox (1949).

19.For example, Trager’s short introductory piece, “The Field of Linguistics,” was widely duplicated for use in FSI classes (Trager, 1950).

20.The names are taken from a footnote in Trager (1950, p. 8); the personnel records of the Department of State provide the following dates of service for them: John M. Echols, 1947–1952; Charles A. Ferguson, 1949–1958; Carleton T. Hodge, 1948–1964; Edward A. Kennard, 1947–1954; Henry Lee Smith, Jr., 1946–1956; George L. Trager, 1948– 1953. Trager also lists Hoenigswald, Hockett, and Kepke; although DOS has no record of their dates of service, Hockett (personal correspondence) mentions that he was at FSI during the summer of 1948; Maddox (1949) says that Hoenigswald was present in 1949. Maddox also lists Naomi Pekmezian and Gordon Fairbanks; Hall later added the name Stockwell (Hall, 1960a, p. 157), and comments on Ferguson’s work specifically (1976, p. 32); Joos (1986, p. 142) confirms Pekmezian and adds Fritz Frauchiger and Lili Rabel. It is worth noting that many of these names are now generally recognized as among the best of that generation of linguists.

21.Further information about the role of anthropologists in the Point IV program can be found in Hsin-Pao (1950) and Stewart (1950). Briefly, the objectives of the program were “to improve the economic and social positions of general populations in underdeveloped areas of the world” (Stewart, 1950, p. 26). The technical name for the program, although it was rarely used, was the “Act for International Development.”

22.In addition to Hall and Kennard in the School of Area Studies alone there were the following: R. K. Lewis in the Mid East section, Claire Holt in Southeast Asia, Clifford Barnett and Glenn Fisher in Latin America (Hall, personal communication).

23.Later research based on extended classroom observations by others points to the same concepts as being a large part of what the culture as a whole requires children to learn in school (see Mehan, 1979, for example).

24.Further discussion of this approach to communication, sometimes termed a social approach, may be found in Leeds-Hurwitz (1989).

25.Today intercultural training maintains this focus on microcultural analysis and the need to learn only particular details of culture in order to act appropriately. Triandis, for example, refers to the “selecting out of the myriad of cultural elements those that are most relevant to culture training” (1983, p. 84).

26.This interview with Hall contains other details of his life and the influences on the development of his ideas. Specifically, he mentions growing up among Spanish Americans and Indians and learning by the age of four that, although people’s minds work differently, that difference doesn’t denote inferiority; he also mentions having problems with verbal learning in school that made him especially receptive to the significance of nonverbal communication in interaction (E. Hall, 1976, p. 68).

27.Interestingly, in 1962 Ward Goodenough rediscovered the need for anthropologists to tailor their material for the audience of government employees about to be sent abroad (in his case the audience was composed of AID rather than FSI personnel). What was wanted, he explained, “was ‘dictionary’ and ‘grammar’ of social conduct.” He recommended that anthropologists take the time to write these (1962, p. 176). The development of ethnoscience was, in part, due to a continued interest in the preparation of such materials. For a discussion of anthropological training in yet another setting, see Keesing (1949), for a description of what the anthropologists provided within the School of Naval Administration.

28.Innovative work in nonverbal communication was not the only significant publication written by the linguists and anthropologists at FSI during this time period: a classic of descriptive linguistics, An Outline of English Structure (Trager & Smith, 1951), is another widely known result. In addition to noting the overlap between the section on intonation in English in Trager and Smith and the article on paralanguage published a few years later by Trager (1958), some general comments on metalinguistics are of particular interest.

29.Hall (1964a) provides an earlier use of the term “paracommunication,” as well as an explanation that he is following the use of the term by Martin Joos and George Trager. It is intended “to refer to communicative behavior which does not have its base in language but is often synchronized with linguistic and paralinguistíc phenomena” (p. 54, fn. 8).

30.Hall also mentions Kennard, Smith, and Ralph Kepler Lewis as providing assistance and encouragement in the early phases of the work (1959, p. vi).

31.Hall points out that others at FSI, particularly Smith and Kennard, were also involved in the creation of the detailed cultural matrix presented in both books (personal communication).

32.See Hall (1956, p. 7); see also the comment by Hall that “In 1953, Trager and I postulated a theory of culture based on a linguistic model,” and then the footnote: “A version of this original series of postulates was published in 1959” (Hall, 1968, p. 85).

33.Two further joint projects occurred on the topic: one was a manuscript published only in mimeographed form, written in collaboration with a third partner, Donald H. Hunt, in 1954 (Trager, Hall & Hunt, 1954), “Technical Aspects of the Theory of the Analysis of Culture”; the other was a short publication by Hall and Trager (1954) in Marshall McLuhan’s journal, Explorations. F. Trager also lists a related unpublished paper, “Human Nature at Home and Abroad: A Guide to the Understanding of Human Behavior,” written by Hall and Trager in 1953.

34.See, for example, a comment on Trager’s influence on their joint research on vocal behavior (1966, p. 114) or the comment that “In 1953, Trager and I postulated a theory of culture based on a linguistic model” (1968, p. 85).

35.The other critics bring up a series of important issues; they argue: that Hall may have gone too far in his use of linguistics as a model for the development of proxemics, since linguistics assumes discrete phenomena, when proxemics may not (John Fischer, 1968, p. 100); that Hall needs to pay more attention to regional differences in proxemic behavior, as well as differences due to sex, age, and status (Weston La Barre, 1968, p. 101); that he has yet to present “a systematic and orderly discourse on his postulates, methodology, and theoretical organization,” what he presents is referred to only as a set of “notes” (Ray Birdwhistell, 1968a, p. 95). As is often the case in these responses, Hall’s work is redefined by each author and put into the framework of their own work: Dell Hymes refers to proxemics and “the rest of contemporary ethnography of communication” (1968, p. 101); Birdwhistell refers to “the other interdependent modalities,” thus including proxemics in a larger set of nonverbal behaviors, along with others such as kinesics (p. 96).

36.I have devoted more space to discussing multidisciplinary research in general and the role it played in a particular case study elsewhere (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1987).

37.Hall was not the first anthropologist to make this suggestion; Mead made a strikingly similar statement a little earlier when she said: “The whole mesh of human social life might logically, and perhaps, in other contexts, fruitfully, be treated as a system of human communications” (1948b, p. 9). However, she did not carry the statement through to its logical conclusion, as Hall did.

38.The continued lack of attention paid to communication by anthropologists, combined with a comparable lack of attention paid to actual examples of speech by linguists, led to the formulation of the ethnography of communication by Dell Hymes in 1962 (Murray, 1983; Leeds-Hurwitz, 1984).

39.One of the reasons for the continuing impact of Whorf on Hall, despite the fact that much of Whorf’s theory has since been rejected (in the strong form, although Hall never says which version of Whorf’s ideas he finds compatible) is probably the fact that Whorf’s drew his examples from fieldwork with the Hopi. Hall had also worked with the Hopi (in the 1930s—see Hall, 1984, p. 40) and, thus, was acquainted with Whorf’s writings before many others discovered them.

40.As recently as 1979, one could assume that the study of intercultural communication required training in both communication and anthropology and that it specifically required “the ability to analyze language and culture” (Neher, 1979, p. 432). Today this view is uncommon, since intercultural communication courses flourish in communication departments, with little or no input from anthropologists or linguists. Few scholars in communication have the ability to analyze language and culture technically, as Neher was presumably proposing as a requirement of good training in the field; fewer still would consider it a prerequisite. See Leeds-Hurwitz and Trager (1987) for a call to include anthropologists in intercultural communication training again.

41.“The businessman can do well to begin by appreciating cultural differences in matters concerning the language of time, of space, of material possessions, of friendship patterns, and of agreements” (Hall, 1960d, p. 88).

42.The use of case studies in this and other works by Hall can be viewed as part of a long tradition within anthropology of collecting both long and short “life histories” (details of autobiography from members of a culture under study as one way of learning what is normal and appropriate behavior). There is a related and comparable use of life histories within linguistics, where the focus was to gather extended examples of text for later analysis (see Leeds-Hurwitz and Nyce, 1986, for discussion of the genesis of this tradition under Edward Sapir).

References

Anonymous. (1946a). US Foreign Service. Fortune Magazine, 34, 81–86, 198–207.

Anonymous. (1946b). The principal features of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 12–13.

Anonymous. (1947). The Foreign Service. Time, 22, 93–99.

Anonymous. (1956). Editorial: A tongue-tied Foreign Service? American Foreign Service Journal, 33, 28.

Applegate, J. L. & Sypher, H. E. (1983). A constructivist outline. In W. B. Gudykunst, (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp. 63–78). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Barnes, N. S. (1962). The importance of languages for Americans abroad. American Foreign Service Journal, 39, 47–51.

Barnes, W. & Morgan, J. H. (1961). The Foreign Service of the US: Origins, development and functions. Washington, D.C.: Department of State.

Benedict, R. (1941). Race problems in America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 216.

Benedict, R. (1943). Transmitting our democratic heritage in the schools. American Journal of Sociology, 48.

Benedict, R. (1946). The study of cultural patterns in European nations. Transactions, 8, 274–279.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1952). Introduction to kinesics. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1968a). Comment. Current Anthropology, 9, 95–96.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1968b). Kinesics. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 8, 379–385.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Blancké, W. W. (1969). The Foreign Service of the United States. London, UK: Praeger.

Boswell, W. P. (1948). The Foreign Service Institute: A case study. (Unpublished manuscript available at the Foreign Service Institute library.)

Bradford, S. (1960). Over the river and into the language course. American Foreign Service Journal, 37, 24–25.

Chadbourne, P. H., Jr. (1958). Training today in the Foreign Service. American Foreign Service Journal, 35, 31–32, 34.

Chapin, S. (1945). Suggestions for improving the Foreign Service and its administration to meet its war and post-war responsibilities. American Foreign Service Journal, 22, 12–14, 52, 55–57, 59–60.

Condon, J. C. (1981). Values and ethics in communication across cultures: Some notes on the North American case. Communication, 6, 255–265.

Cooley, R. E. (1983). Codes and contexts: An argument for their description. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp. 241–251). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cowan, J. M. (1975). Peace and war. LSA [Linguistic Society of America] Bulletin, 64, 28–34.

Cowan, J. M. (1987). The Whimsical Bloomfield. Historigraphia Linguistica, 14, 23–37.

Cronen, V. E. & Shuter, R. (1983). Forming intercultural bonds. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp. 89–118). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dodd, C. H. (1982). Dynamics of intercultural communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Fischer, J. L. (1968). Comment. Current Anthropology, 9, 100.

Friedman, K. (1979, August). Learning the Arabs’ silent language. Psychology Today, 13, 45–54.

Gantenbein, J. W. (1945). Suggestions for improving the Foreign Service and its administration to meet its war and post-war responsibilities. American Foreign Service Journal, 22, 18–20, 56, 58–59, 61–62.

Goodenough, W. (1962). The growing demand for behavioral science in government: Its implications for anthropology. Human Organization 21, 172–181.

Gordon, L. (1955). Organization for the conduct of foreign policy. American Foreign Service Journal, 32, 18–20, 46–48.

Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (1983). Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). Intercultural communication: Current status and proposed directions. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 1–46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Cross-cultural comparisons. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee, (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847–889). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York, NY: Random House.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, E. (1976, July). How cultures collide: Interview with Edward T. Hall. Psychology Today, 10(7), 66–97.

Hall, E. T. (1950). Military government on Truk. Human Organization, 9, 25–30.

Hall, E. T. (1955). The anthropology of manners. Scientific American, 192, 85–89.

Hall, E. T. (1956). Orientation and training in government for work overseas. Human Organization, 15, 4–10.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1960a). Linguistic models in the analysis of culture. In W. M. Austin, (Ed.), Report of the Ninth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study (pp. 157–158). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Hall, E. T. (1960b). A microcultural analysis of time. In A. F. C. Wallace (Ed.), Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 1956 (pp. 118–122). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hall, E. T. (1960c). The language of space. Landscape, 10, 41–45.

Hall, E. T. (1960d). The silent language in overseas business. Harvard Business Review, 38, 87–96.

Hall, E. T. (1963a). Proxemics: The study of man’s spatial relations. In Arden House Conference on Medicine and Anthropology, Man’s image in medicine and anthropology (pp. 422–445). New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Hall, E. T. (1963b). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65, 1003–1026.

Hall, E. T. (1964a). Silent assumptions in social communication. In D. McK. Rioch & E. A. Weinstein (Eds.), Disorders of communication: Proceedings of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, 1962 (pp. 41–53). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Hall, E. T. (1964b). Adumbration in intercultural communication. American Anthropologist, 66, 154–163.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9, 83–108.

Hall, E. T. (1969). Listening behavior: Some cultural differences. Phi Delta Kappan, 50, 379–380.

Hall, E. T. (1971). The paradox of culture. In B. Landis & E. S. Tauber (Eds.), In the name of life: Essays in honor of Erich Fromm (pp. 218–235). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hall, E. T. (1972). Silent assumptions in social communication. In J. Laver & S. Hutcheson (Eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction (pp. 274–288). Middlesex, UK: Penguin.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. & Trager, G. L. (1953a). The analysis of culture. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.

Hall, E. T. & Trager, G. L. (1953b). Human nature at home and abroad: A guide to the understanding of human behavior. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.

Hall, E. T. & Trager, G. L. (1954). Culture and communications: A model and an analysis. Explorations, 3.

Hall, E. T. & Whyte, W. F. (1960). Intercultural communication: A guide to men of action. Human Organization, 19, 5–12.

Harrington, J. F. (1946). How the legislation developed. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 7–9, 52.

Hopkins, F. S. (1946). Some suggestions on the In-Service Training Program of Foreign Service Officers. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 7–11, 14–16, 45–46.

Hsin-Pao, Y. (1950). Guideposts for the Point IV Program. Human Organization, 9, 22–26.

Hymes, D. (1968). Comment. Current Anthropology, 9, 100–101.

Jester, P. (1945). Suggestions for improving the Foreign Service and its administration to meet its war and post-war responsibilities. American Foreign Service Journal, 22, 14–17, 53.

Jester, P. & Smith, H. L., Jr. (1946). Language training for the Foreign Service and the Department of State. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 34–35, 64, 67–68, 70–72.

Joos, M. (1986). Notes on the development of the Linguistic Society of America, 1924 to 1950. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services.

Keefer, L. E. (1988). Scholars in foxholes: The story of the Army Specialized Training Program in World War II. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Keesing, F. M. (1949). Experiments in training overseas administrators. Human Organization, 8, 20–22.

Kennard, E. A. (1948). Cultural anthropology and the Foreign Service. American Foreign Service Journal, 25, 18–19, 42, 44.

Klopf, D. W. (1987). Intercultural encounters: The fundamentals of intercultural communications. Englewood, NJ: Morton.

La Barre, W. (1968). Comment. Current Anthropology, 9, 101–102.

Lampson, E. T. (1946). A Foreign Service Institute. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 12–13, 43–44.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1984). On the Relationship of the “ethnography of speaking” to the “ethnography of communication”. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17, 7–32.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1987). The social history of the Natural History of an Interview: A multidisciplinary investigation of social communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20, 1–51.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1989). Communication in everyday life: A social interpretation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. & Nyce, J. (1986). Linguistic text collection and the development of life history in the work of Edward Sapir. In W. Cowan, M. K. Foster & K. Koerner (Eds.), New perspectives on language, culture and personality: Proceedings of the Edward Sapir Centenary Conference (Ottawa, 1–3 October 1984) (pp. 495–531). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. & Trager, L. (Eds.). (1987). Workshops in intercultural communication [Special issue]. Practicing Anthropology, 9.

Lorenz, J. P. (1959). Foreign Service language training: Some facts and fallacies. American Foreign Service Journal, 36, 22–23.

Maddox, W. (1947a). Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State. Higher Education, 4, 37–40.

Maddox, W (1947b). Foreign Service in tradition. Foreign Affairs, 25, 304–313.

Maddox, W. (1949). The Institute’s program of language instruction. American Foreign Service Journal, 26, 12–14, 36, 38, 40, 42.

McClintock, R. M. (1945). Suggestions for improving the Foreign Service and its administration to meet its war and post-war responsibilities. American Foreign Service Journal, 22, 15–17, 48, 51–52, 55.

Mead, M. (1943). Anthropological techniques in war psychology. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 7, 137–140.

Mead, M. (1948a). A case history in cross-national communications. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 209–229). New York, NY: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.

Mead, M. (1948b). Some cultural approaches to communication problems. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 9–26). New York, NY: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Modell, J. (1983). Ruth Benedict: Patterns of a life. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Murray, S. O. (1983). Group formation in social science. Edmonton, Canada: Linguistic Research.

Nadler, S. I. (1965). Breaking the language barrier. American Foreign Service Journal, 42, 17–21, 54.

Neher, W. W. (1979). Review of The Cultural Dialogue and USIA Intercultural Communication Course: 1977 Proceedings. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 44, 432–433.

Nwankwo, R. L. (1979). Intercultural communication: A critical review. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 324–346.

Pappano, A. E. (1946). Language study in the Foreign Service. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 30–31, 40.

Pearce, W. B. & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). Rules theories: Varieties, limitations and potentials. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp. 79–88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Poullada, L. & Poullada, L. (1957). Our tongue-tied Foreign Service. American Foreign Service Journal, 34, 24–25, 44–47.

Robinson, G. J. (1988). “Here be dragons”: Problems in charting the U.S. history of communication studies. Communication, 10, 97–119.

Rowland, W. D., Jr. (1988). Recreating the past: Dilemmas in rewriting the history of communication research. Communication, 10, 121–140.

Singer, M. R. (1987). Intercultural communication: A perceptual approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Smith, H. L., Jr. (1946). Language training for the Foreign Service and the Department of State. American Foreign Service Journal, 23, 11–13, 43–44, 47.

Starosta, W. J. (1984). On intercultural rhetoric. In W. B. Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 229–238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Steigman, A. L. (1985). The Foreign Service of the United States: First line of defense. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Stewart, O. C. (1950). Social scientists and the Point IV Program. Human Organization, 9, 26–27.

Strom, C. W. (1962). Training at the Foreign Service Institute. American Foreign Service Journal, 39, 48–51.

Trager, F. H. (Ed.). (1971). An annotated bibliography of the publications and writings of George L. Trager through 1970. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Paper #12.

Trager, G. L. (1950). The field of linguistics. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Paper #1.

Trager, G. L. (1958). Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies in Linguistics, 13, 1–12.

Trager, G. L. (1960). Taos III: Paralanguage. Anthropological Linguistics, 2, 24–30.

Trager, G. L. (1968). Comment. Current Anthropology, 9, 105.

Trager, G. L., Hall, E. T. & Hunt, D. H. (1954). Technical aspects of the theory of the analysis of culture. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.

Trager, G. L., & Smith, H. L., Jr. (1951). An outline of English structure. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Paper #3.

Triandis, H. C. (1983). Essentials of studying cultures. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. 1, pp. 82–117). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Whorf, B. L. (1952). Collected papers in metalinguistics. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.

Winkin, Y. (1984). Le developpement de la “communication interculturelle” aux Etats-Unis: Un aperçu critique. Les Cahiers de Psychologie Sociale, 24, 16–27.