Tag: Chinese

English vs. Chinese Small Talk: How Do A Culture’s Power & Social Distance Influence Conversation

Posted on by Leave a comment

Two linguistically diverse worlds – English and Chinese – with two distinctly different views on social hierarchy.

How does small talk differ across these cultures? 

This study, published in Acta Linguistica Academica, An International Journal of Linguistics, dissected the layers of communication within these distinct linguistic and cultural contexts.

All through small talk.

Why Small Talk?

Often dismissed as trivial banter, small talk can reveal insights into the socio-cultural fabric of a society. 

Yet, analyzing small talk in English or Chinese in isolation risks oversimplifying it. 

Instead, this group of researchers adopted a contrastive pragmatic approach to discern the subtle differences and shared conventions that shape small talk in these languages.

Why English & Chinese?

English, as a global lingua franca, boasts a multitude of variations and customs, making it challenging to discuss small talk without overlooking its complexities. 

A contrastive analysis, therefore, offered a nuanced understanding of small talk’s conventionalized traits in English.

While East Asian languages, like Chinese, may be subject to relative non-linguistic terms like ‘low-/high-involvement cultures’ or ‘collectivity/individuality’, the researchers try to avoid that and, instead, use a bottom-up, language-centered approach.

By juxtaposing data from these linguistically distant cultures, the cultural ecosystems and the dynamic between language, culture, and communication were brought into greater contrast.

What are the Findings?

In English discourse, researchers found a tendency for speakers to default to speech acts like Greet, How-are-you, and Welcome as a precursor to small talk, particularly in ordinary situations. 

However, as scenarios become increasingly extraordinary, English speakers deviate from routine, often initiating small talk with Requests for information, indicative of a shift in conversational norms.

Contrastingly, Remark was the predominant speech act of Chinese Small Talk, even in extraordinary contexts, underscoring its perceived linguistic necessity. 

A Remark, as defined by the study, is:

“A typically Phatic speech act through which the speaker shows himself favorably disposed towards his addressee.”

Remark’s prevalence highlights the verbosity of Chinese Small Talk compared to the concise nature observed in English discourse.

Requests for Information

Further analysis uncovers intriguing differences in the use of Requests for information. 

While prevalent in English discourse, they are predominantly confined to non-personal settings, indicative of a reluctance to delve into personal matters. 

In contrast, Chinese speakers utilize Requests for information, often formulated as quasi-Remarks, regardless of setting, reflecting a distinct cultural approach to information exchange.

Moreover, the study’s investigation challenges simplistic intercultural arguments, revealing the influence of social distance and power dynamics on small talk in both English and Chinese contexts. 

Notably, the presence of Remarks in English discourse is contingent upon power dynamics, highlighting the contextual sensitivity inherent in linguistic interactions.

As the study delves into increasingly extraordinary scenarios, a clear divergence emerges between English and Chinese small talk practices. 

While Chinese speakers maintain routine regardless of context, English speakers demonstrate adaptability, deviating from conventions in extraordinary situations.

These differences in small talk reveal the dynamics of each culture as related to delving into personal disclosures, as well as the degree to which social and power distance impact small talk.

Contradiction, Categorization, and Change: Three Studies on Cultural Thinking Styles & How We View the World, Part II

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does the way we think determine how we categorize things in our minds?

Does it influence how we view change?

Last week, we discussed analytic and holistic/dialectical thinking and how each thinking style views contradiction.

This week, we’ll take a look at two more studies on the subject – this time regarding categorization and change.

Categorization

Analytic thinkers are more likely to follow rule-based logic than dialectical thinkers are.

This is apparent in the way both groups categorize objects.

Studies in the early 2000s looked at how European American participants and Chinese and Korean participants categorize objects (Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004; Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, & Nisbett, 2002).

For instance, how would you logically pair a chicken, a cow, and grass?

Which two go together?

Americans more often than not paired the animals together, as they are more insistent on rule-based categorization, whereas East Asians were more likely than Americans to pair the cow with grass, since cows eat grass.

Americans were also more accurate about applying complex rules of categorization when instructed to do so.

Change

As mentioned in the previous post, analytic thinkers are linear thinkers.

They think in states of stability, not in states of flux.

Any states of change follow a linear trend.

Dialectical thinkers think in perpetual change and variability.

This way of thinking is described as follows:

“At the deepest level of Chinese philosophical thinking, ‘to be or not to be’ is not the question, because life is a constant state of passing from one stage of being to another, so that to be is not to be, and not to be is to be” (Peng & Nisbett, 1999, p. 743).

These different styles of thinking lead to different predictions.

One study demonstrated that while Americans take into account previous predictors to indicate future results, Chinese participants do not (Ji, Nisbett, & Su, 2001).

When given the scenario of whether a three-year chess champion would likely lose the next game against his strongest opponent, Americans proposed a 29% chance, while Chinese respondents proposed a 53% chance.

This linear versus cyclical view of change was also illustrated in a study on stocks (Ji, Zhang, & Guo, 2008).

While Canadians were more likely to sell falling stocks and buy rising stocks, Chinese participants did the opposite, selling rising stocks and buying falling stocks.

This counter-normative instinct is seen in professional investors too, with Canadian investors twice as likely to sell falling stocks as Chinese investors.

Contradiction, Categorization & Change

These studies illustrate how opposing thinking styles can color your perspective in so many different ways.

When viewing contradiction, when categorizing objects and groups, and when dealing with change in various capacities, our decisions are based on our thinking styles.

Keep this in mind when working with or managing in other cultures: There is no “one way” to see the world.

Values & Communication: How Cultural Perspective Colors Our Speech

Posted on by 1 Comment

You’re flying to London, and you’re sitting by someone from another culture on the plane.

You decide to try and strike up a conversation.

You start chitchatting, sharing about your visit to London, asking about their final destination, wondering what their plans are…but they seem reluctant to speak.

They avoid eye contact and offer only short answers. After a while, you catch a clue and give them the solace of silence.

You walk away from the attempt at small talk with the impression that they’re shy.

While you may be right that they’re more introverted, their communication style may also simply be part of their culture.

In this study in the International Education Journal, titled “Why do they not talk?”, unique habits of communication were found in individualist and collectivist cultures.

The study evaluated the communication tactics of Australian and Chinese students to discover the distinct cultural differences that set each apart.

The Australians

The Australian students demonstrated a more independent self, emphasizing individuality in their communication. 

They expressed themselves openly and asserted their unique inner qualities in interactions with friends, parents, and in class. 

Their behavior was guided by their individual personalities rather than predefined roles. 

They appeared nonchalant about others’ opinions, focusing on being their own person while still desiring their parents’ pride.

The Chinese

In contrast, the Chinese students displayed a high degree of self-monitoring. 

They exhibited an interdependent self, prioritizing group harmony and considering others’ perceptions.

They were sensitive to others’ feelings and often hesitated to voice their opinions, particularly in class or group settings, for fear of imposing on others. 

Some researchers suggested that their attentiveness to others’ expectations might compromise their verbal fluency and creative expression. 

Additionally, the Chinese students tended to downplay their abilities and engage in self-effacement, adhering to societal expectations and valuing humility.

The Chinese students also demonstrated a strong inclination toward affiliating with groups that shared their language and cultural background. 

This sense of security and belonging contributed to their intense focus on working collectively and cooperatively as a group. 

It’s important to note that interdependence does not negate individual judgment, opinions, or abilities.

Instead, it highlights the adaptive nature of Chinese students who navigate interpersonal situations by balancing their self-awareness and agency.

As one student put it,

“As long as I know I am good, enough already. We were not brought up to brag about ourselves.”

Individualism vs. Collectivism

To sum up, the Australian students emphasized their individuality and personal expression in communication, while the Chinese students prioritized group harmony and were attuned to others’ perceptions. 

This is common in individualist versus collectivist cultures.

These cultural differences shape communication styles and strategies, highlighting the diverse ways in which individuals navigate social interactions.

Self-Esteem & Future Time Perspective: How One’s Orientation Affects Their Sense of Self

Posted on by Leave a comment

When you look to the future, what do you see?

Are you positive about it? Negative? Confused? Certain?

And how does this predict your level of self-esteem?

That’s what one study by Southwest University and Ohio University set out to determine by examining Chinese and American college students and their feelings about the future.

Future & Past Time Perspective

We’ve talked about time orientation in past posts.

Americans generally have a future time perspective, while the Chinese favor a past time perspective.

Future time perspective involves goal-setting and forward-thinking. 

Future-oriented cultures are progressive and look toward – you guessed it – the future.

They try to see the big picture.

They plan and are driven by aims and goals.

Past-oriented cultures are conservative and risk-averse. 

They look at the past and present as interchangeable.

The past is revered and directs the future. 

Tradition is important, as are family values.

As you can see, each culture views time – and the future – very differently.

The Study

Using the FTP Scale (Future Time Perspective) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, 340 American undergrads and 460 Chinese undergrads were tested.

The study found that the American undergrads were more negative and confused about the future, as well as more positive, perspicuous, and perseverant about it.

American students also exhibited higher self-esteem than their Chinese counterparts.

What do these results mean?

The study has some answers.

Results Analysis

Why are young Americans more pessimistic about the future than their Chinese counterparts?

The study suggests that ever since the 2008 financial crisis, U.S. GDP has suffered, while China, as a developing nation, has a higher growth rate.

These socioeconomic factors may impact both groups’ levels of pessimism.

As for the Americans’ higher levels of optimism, this could be due to an innate belief in the economic development and national trends of the country.

American individualism may also impact the undergrads’ level of confusion about the future.

Those from individualist cultures more often believe that the future is in their hands. This makes for both isolation and uncertainty.

Those from collectivist cultures have a social safety net.

Their future is also viewed from a collective perspective (parents, friends, teachers, etc.), so this group involvement may reduce feelings of uncertainty for Chinese undergrads.

Self-Esteem

In both the American and Chinese groups, self-esteem was linked to future-negative or future-positive sub scale scores.

Those who had a positive view of the future had higher self-esteem, while those with a negative view of the future had lower self-esteem.

Similarly, those confused about the future had lower self-esteem, while those perspicuous about the future had higher self-esteem.

The higher degrees of optimism and perspicuity about the future in the American group led to a higher average level of self-esteem overall.

The Meaning of Well-Being: A Qualitative Cross-Cultural Study

Posted on by Leave a comment

What does “well-being” mean to you?

Back in 1984, the World Health Organization defined health and well-being as follows:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.”

This universal definition of well-being differs from subjective well-being, which is how one evaluates one’s own quality of life, how one feels in it, and how one feels they function in it.

Research and literature surrounding subjective well-being focus on happiness, positive affect, and life satisfaction.

Social well-being is more in tune with social behaviors: how one interacts with social institutions and mores, how he/she interacts with others, and how others react to him/her.

Considering these differences, this study comparing well-being constructs between German and Chinese students looked at social support as an indicator of social well-being, and happiness and satisfaction with life as indicators of subjective well-being.

Well-Being Study

It can be assumed that the definitions of the above terms might differ between these two groups, based on their differing cultures, as might the objectives to accomplish each.

Via focus groups and questionnaires, the study assessed perceived social support through rated statements like:

  • “I experience a lot of understanding and security from others.”
  • “If necessary, I can easily borrow something I might need from neighbors or friends.”
  • “I have friends and family who will simply just hug me.”

Similarly, satisfaction was measured through statements like:

  • “The conditions of my life are excellent.”
  • “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.” 
  • “I am satisfied with my life.”

And, lastly, happiness was measured via statements like:

  • “Some people are generally happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything.”
  • “Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be.”

The Results

Happiness

Both groups defined happiness criteria as including social contacts, positive emotions, and quality of life. Where the two countries differed was in social contact.

Social contact was the most frequently mentioned aspect in China and the least in Germany.

Another interesting aspect of the way each group viewed happiness was in the angle they took. 

The Chinese groups saw happiness as pursuing a dream/goal and/or seeing it fulfilled, while the German groups saw two types of happiness: uncontrollable (which is designed by luck or fate, for instance) and controllable (as in achieving something). They also specified that happiness is subjective and brief.

Life Satisfaction

Both groups noted different kinds of satisfaction.

First, an individual realistic standard; second, an ideal standard that’s changeable. 

Lastly, they mentioned one’s perception of current satisfaction.

Quality of life was seen by both groups as a significant factor of life satisfaction, but the Chinese students focused on good living conditions (like high salary and economic conditions), while the German students focused on basic needs fulfillment (a home and food, etc.).

The researchers concluded that these differences may be based on the economic focuses of the two countries.

The Chinese groups saw contentment with one’s situation and a positive attitude about life as major contributing factors to life satisfaction, while the German students noted that satisfaction can come with comparing one’s current situation with the social norm or an individual standard.

Perceived Social Support

Chinese students focused on societal support, like charities, companies, and government policies, when discussing sources of perceived social support, while German students focused more on direct social networks.

German students mentioned financial and material support more frequently than their Chinese counterparts.

Both groups mentioned emotional support, while only the Chinese groups talked about “asking for help” indirectly, such as by posting on social media to gain empathy.

This study shows that though the themes of well-being may be universal, the contributing factors to well-being differ across cultures, often depending on cultural values, perspectives, and expectations.

How Culture Impacts a Person’s Sense of Control (aka Locus of Control)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you believe in fate?

Last week, we talked about how the degree to which someone feels life is directed by destiny dictates their locus of control – that is their feeling of control over their own lives.

Let’s look at how the locus of control unfolds in the workplace.

The Blame Game

When a goal is set and not reached in a workplace environment, the reactions of your colleagues can be very telling.

Sheila blames Jeremy for not delivering the documents in time for her to complete her task.

Jeremy blames Tom for not communicating promptly.

Tom blames his home life for distracting him.

Team Leader Lisa admits she missed the mark and should have taken the campaign in another direction. She apologizes for the part she played in not meeting the goal.

People with an internal locus of control take personal responsibility for their role in a group’s failure, while those with an external locus point at everyone else but themselves, whether they see fault in the “weakest links” of the group or in external factors.

Cross-Cultural Factors

How do cross-cultural factors come into play in the locus?

The locus of control is directly related to personality orientation; however, social psychologists have begun to study the majority locus of control in various cultures and the factors that influence it.

They’ve discovered that quite often the people of any given culture look at fate or self-control in a generally collective manner.

As you may have guessed, individualist cultures generally demonstrate an internal locus of control. They believe they’re the masters of their own fate.

Collectivist cultures – like those of China or Japan – demonstrate an external locus. They accept that things are out of their hands and don’t put weight on the individual’s role in the whole.

To illustrate this, when Americans and Chinese were surveyed about their view of fate, these were the results.

locusofcontrol

89% of questioned Americans agreed with the statement, “What happens to me is my own doing,” while 65% of Chinese admitted, “Sometimes I feel I don’t have control over the direction my life is taking.”

This aligns with each culture’s dominant traits, with Americans espousing ambition, individualism, and the “American dream,” while China espouses harmony and collectivism.

Next week, we’ll talk a little bit about how the group locus of control can be divided up further amongst ethnic groups and even simply locations in the same country. We’ll also talk about primary and secondary control. Stay tuned.