The Chinese Indirect VS. Americans? Direct Interaction And Discourse Organization Styles

Based on the empirical and case studies of interaction styles and drawing on sociolinguistic and pragmatic studies of speech behavior, as well as cross-cultural analysis of discourse organization styles, the present author proposes the concepts of pragmatic relativity and pragmatic diversity as an alternative to the concepts of sociolinguistic relativity and sociolinguistic diversity, which serve as a guiding principle for the comparative study of interaction and discourse styles of the Chinese and American cultures. Pragmatic relativity refers to the phenomenon that each culture has its own unique cultural value system, and as a result each culture has its own unique pragmatic conventions or norms operating in the use of language. The phenomenon that pragmatic conventions and norms are culture specific may lead to differences in language use, which may in turn lead to misunderstandings in cross-cultural communication as when people from different cultures interact, they tend to judge and evaluate each other's behavior according to their own conventions. This is what the concept of pragmatic diversity is all about.Guided by the principle of pragmatic relativity and diversity, we assume in the dissertation that there are differences in the interaction and discourse conventions of the Chinese and American cultures. And to prove our assumptions, we compare the interaction styles of the Chinese and American cultures from two perspectives: spoken interaction and written discourse organization, which are relevant not only to the transfer of information but also to management of social relations in communication between the two cultures. Based on the empirical and case studies, we argue that parallel phenomenon or the consistency of the indirect style or the direct style in spoken and written discourses of the Chinese and American cultures, shows that the predominance of the different style in these two cultures is not an incidental phenomenon. It is a systematic and consistent practice of the Chinese and Americans in their everyday communication and even in their academic writings. The analyses and explorations confirm our assumption that in the Chinese culture the indirect style of interaction and discourse organization is largely preferred while in the American culture the direct style of interaction and discourse organization is largely preferred. Even though almost all cultures use these two styles in everyday interaction and communication, however, the degree to which they are elaborated varies from culture to culture.To explain the differences in interaction and discourse organization styles, we formulate a framework, incorporating culture into the pragmatic paradigm and using it as a theoretical variable. We use culture as an explanatory variable to account for the differences in interaction and discourse styles at two levels: cross-cultural communication at the cultural level and cross-cultural communication at the individual level.When comparing the interaction styles of the Chinese and American cultures from the perspective of spoken interaction, we make analyses of requests and facework strategies. We make a contrastive study of the Chinese indirect and Americans'direct requests, the Chinese implicit and Americans'explicit requests, as well as the Chinese indirect facework strategies and Americans'direct facework strategies in conflict negotiation and resolution. We point out that the Chinese often prefer to delay their request until the end or after facework and justifications or reason while the Americans often prefer to place their request early or in general at the beginning and if they want to provide justifications or reasons for their request, they usually place them after the request.When comparing the interaction styles of the Chinese and American cultures from the perspective of written discourse, we examine essays of Chinese and American college students, abstracts of papers presented at a symposium held in China and English abstracts from an American academic journal. The examination of these writings reinforces the assumption that in the English writings of the Chinese the indirectness or inductive approach is a general preference, while in the writings of the Americans directness or deductive approach is a general preference. We find that even though both writings share linear and configural logic modes, the configural logic in the English writings of the Chinese is the generally preferred mode while in those of the Anglo-Americans linear logic is the general preference.To examine and explain the differences in interaction and discourse organization styles of these two cultures, we formulate a framework. In using culture as an explanatory variable, we particularly select the dimensions of individualism-collectivism at the cultural level communication and independent-interdependent self-construals at the individual-level communication. In high-context cultures such as the Chinese culture, which are collectivism oriented, meanings are often internalized and there is a strong emphasis on indirectness, implicitness, and understatement as well as nonverbal codes. In low-context cultures such as the American culture, which are individualism oriented, people look for the meaning of others'behaviors in the messages that are plainly and explicitly coded.The important tasks for American individuals who emphasize independent self-construals are to be unique, strive for their own goals, express themselves, and be direct. The important tasks for Chinese individuals who emphasize interdependent self-construals are to establish harmonious relationship, fit in with their ingroups, act in an appropriate fashion, promote their ingroups'goals, occupy their proper places, be indirect and read other people's minds.Philosophically speaking, the Chinese indirect and Americans'direct interaction and discourse organization styles are consistent with the concept of self in terms of interpersonal relationship in these two cultures. Cross-culturally speaking, the differences in interaction and discourse organization styles and expressions can be attributed to the differences in the concepts of the Eastern self and the Western self and their self-expressions. In the Confucian or Chinese sense of self, one is more a self in human relationships, and less a self in isolation. To establish relationship or harmony, obliging and accommodating others are deemed to be the most important mechanism in interpersonal interactions. This necessarily leads to an indirect style in communication. Whereas, the Americans, who are autonomous-self oriented, self-expression inherently becomes ideal and the inhibition of it is the biggest problem. And speaking and writing are considered to be the expression of the self, as well as the expression of independence and equality.There are no universal conventions or norms of speaking and writing. The maxims put forward by Grice, Leech and others in the West, are in general based on verbalized interactions or verbalized meanings in the Western cultures. In the communication of the Chinese cultural context, conventions and norms are unique and it is these culture specific conventions or norms that dictate the way the Chinese speak and write.