Download Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers

Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers:
How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
Julie Peters
University of Michigan - Dearborn
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
1
Abstract
In today’s world, the landscape of competition within a global market has further pushed
for a demand in cross-cultural communication among speakers of other countries. The result has
no doubt brought an increased need for translators and translation devices. The detrimental effect
of relying solely on interpretation is not just the “lost in translation” issue. Many
misunderstandings occur due to a lack of awareness regarding how cross-cultural communication
patterns often differ and how those differences can significantly impact the interaction. This
paper discusses the cross-cultural communication patterns among Japanese and American
speakers and explains how these differences contribute to misunderstandings.
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
2
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers:
How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
In today’s world, the landscape of competition within a global market has further pushed
for a demand in cross-cultural communication among speakers of other countries. The result has
no doubt brought an increased need for translators and translation devices. The detrimental effect
of relying solely on interpretation is not just the “lost in translation” issue. Many
misunderstandings occur due to a lack of awareness regarding how cross-cultural communication
patterns often differ and how those differences can significantly impact the interaction. This
paper discusses the cross-cultural communication patterns among Japanese and American
speakers and explains how these differences contribute to misunderstandings.
Haru Yamada, author of Different Games, Different Rules: Why Americans and Japanese
Misunderstand Each Other, had always noticed differences in the communication patterns of
Japanese and American speakers, inasmuch as the living arrangement she had experienced from
her early childhood up until adulthood had provided her with a unique perspective. At the age of
three, her father’s work had her family move from Japan to the United States. Every three years
thereafter, she and her family rotated between Japan and the United States. As a sociolinguist,
interest in this field of study therefore came naturally, especially since many of her findings
correlated directly with her own insight.
According to Yamada (1997), Japanese and American speakers are essentially operating
as participants in two games with different goals and communication rules. In simpler terms, it
would be like two people thinking they are playing the same game, when in actuality, one is
playing Sorry and the other is playing Monopoly, and their plays are based on the rules of the
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
3
game they think they are playing. One might respond that all is needed is to either play one game
or the other, but as Yamada demonstrates, this is not so easily done. The goals and rules of the
games (languages) played among them are deeply embedded within their culture and in most
cases, are central themes within their society. It is reflected even in their communication styles
and relationships.
For Americans, the goal is self-reliance (Yamada, 1997, p. 20). The output of society
tells them that the standard is to not depend on anyone, to stand on your own two feet and be
independent. A U.S. self-help book demonstrated this point clearly with the statement,
“Warning: Beware of the person who sends the message implicit or explicit, ‘I want someone to
take care of me.’ Chances are he or she lacks inner intimacy and feelings of stability and selflove” (Yamada, 1997, p. 8). Because independence is achieved through paid work, the role
model for Americans is the working man (Yamada, 1997, p. 122). Unpaid work does not suggest
independence and therefore is not valued. The well-known Aesop’s Fable The Ant and the
Grasshopper emphasizes this value in its story (Yamada, 1997, pp. 3-5). Here the ant works all
summer long storing food and is able to survive during the harsh winter months. The grasshopper
was not working (although he could have been making music to keep the ants’ spirit up, as
Yamada (1997) suggests); however, that was not the case. The grasshopper’s contribution was
not valued because it did not suggest self-reliance. Whether it contributed in any other capacity is
irrelevant.
In contrast, the Japanese goal is interdependence (Yamada, 1997, p. 20). It is noteworthy
to mention here that dependence—the opposite of independence—is not the Japanese goal. The
distinction between dependence and interdependence is that, in the latter, everyone relies on
everyone; what matters is the group, not the individual. The essence of interdependence is what
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
4
the Japanese refer to as amae, which translates to “sweetness” (Yamada, 1997, p. 9). Their
culture centers on accommodation for one another in a group and there is an expectation for
reciprocation in this regard. In the Japanese culture, there are two types of group membership:
inside groups (uchi) and outside groups (soto) (Yamada, 1997, p. 43). Regardless of the type of
group relationship, there is an understanding that everyone in a group has their role (bun) and
each role is valued, regardless of whether or not it is monetary contribution (Yamada, 1997, p. 13
and 37). For this reason, the role model in Japanese culture is the mother because of the role she
serves as a nurturer (Yamada, 1997, p. 122). This is demonstrated in the Japanese version of the
above-mentioned fable. In this version, there is an ant and a cicada. The story is otherwise the
same aside from that distinction, as well as with the ending: both the ant’s physical work and the
cicada’s nurturing work are valued and they both reap the benefits (Yamada, 1997, p. 4).
On the note of being “others-entered”, this value is taught even from an early age
(Yamada, 1997, p. 132-137). Parents demonstrate this as they talk to their children. As Yamada
(1997) illustrated with two examples, in a scenario where a child is misbehaving, an American
parent would be likely to address the action as being wrong and would demonstrate the correct
form. In contrast, the Japanese parent would be likely to focus on what others are thinking. This
emphasizes accommodation and discourages actions that are not generally acceptable.
The amae (sweetness) of interdependence is considered stronger than individuality in the
Japanese culture and so it is no wonder they have a long list of quotes, teachings and proverbs
that coincide with this thought (Yamada, 1997, p. 5-7). One proverb states, “Deru Kugi wa
utareru” which means “Nails that stick out get hammered back in” (Yamada, 1997, p. 12).
Another example of this value is with the classic Zen quote: “A foolish person regards himself as
another, a wise man regards others as himself” (Yamada, 1997, p. 11). Last, there is a classic
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
5
Confucian teaching: “If one wants to establish oneself, one has to establish others. If one wants
to reach perfection for oneself, one has to reach perfection for others” (Yamada, 1997, p. 12).
In contrast, Americans deem independence to be stronger than dependence—and
interdependence lies on the boundary (Yamada, 1997, p. 5-7). This is seen in all facets of the
culture but one very evident example is communication style. As previously mentioned, the
communication rules for Americans are vastly different from the Japanese. Americans seek
explicit communication and deem silence to be inferior (Yamada, 1997, p. 8). This is
exemplified in various settings such as movies, sayings, and even in historical respects. For
instance, Yamada (1997) demonstrates how the silent nature of Native American communication
was perceived by pointing to the Thomas Mann quote: “Speech is civilization itself. The word,
even the most contradictory, preserves contact—it is silence which isolates” (Yamada, 1997, p.
17). Another example is the saying: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” (Yamada, 1997, p. 17).
The Japanese also have sayings, but the sayings reflect an opposing perception of silence.
Yamada (1997) illustrates this difference with the following examples: “Tori mo nakaneba
utaremaji,” which means “If the bird had not sung, it would not have been shot;” “Kuchi wa
wazawai no moto,” which means “The mouth is the source of calamity;” and the humorous,
rewritten version by cartoonist Gomi Taro, “Oshaberi wa kuchi no onara,” which means
“Talkativeness is a mouth’s fart” (Yamada, 1997, p. 17). The views of Americans and Japanese
on the issue of silence clearly clashes.
The views that each culture has on silence are reflected in their language, as well—not
just with the words themselves, but the way words are said: explicitly or implicitly. Yamada
(1997) demonstrates this point by contrasting a Japanese movie with its American version (p. 1418). In the Japanese movie The Seven Samarai, warriors communicate implicitly by doing more
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
6
than saying. In the American version The Magnificent Seven, warriors describe and explain
everything they are doing or planning to do. The reason for this goes back to the core of what
each culture’s goal strives for: independence or interdependence. Another difference between the
two movie versions was the “amended goal” for each type of talk, which Yamada (1997) referred
to as “Equal Opportunity Independence in Talk” (American) and “Others-Centered
Interdependence in Talk-Distancing” (Japanese) (Yamada, 1997, p. 20). In The Seven Samarai,
the warriors are able to speak implicitly about the impending danger by speaking in general terms
and by using the pronoun “we”, which connotes a sense of unity. The American warriors in The
Magnificent Seven contrast this example clearly with their overuse of the pronoun “I”, which
connotes individuality. It is this type of nuance that speaks so softly, yet has such a significant
impact. (Yamada, 1997, p. 20).
Yamada (1997) explained that although each culture has its own goal, it must contend
with the predicament of doing so, which may in a way go against their core goal (p. 19). To be
clear: the American goal is to strive for independence; however, American speakers must find
ways around this goal in order to have and maintain relationships. In the same way, Japanese
seek interdependence and must circumvent their issue: being implicit when the situation deems it
necessary to be explicit. This paradox is what Yamada, and her well-known sociolinguist
professor/colleague Deborah Tannen, refer to as a “double bind axis” (Yamada, 1997, p. 19).
Yamada (1997) expanded on the concept of Americans and Japanese being participants in
two different games by comparing their underlying rules for communication as “communication
equipment” (Yamada, 1997, p. 34). Yamada examined each component of “communication
equipment” within the context of comparing/contrasting American communication with Japanese
communication. For instance, the sentence structure of American communication requires it to
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
7
be subject (S) + verb (V) + object (O); Japanese sentence structure is (S) + (O) + (V). All parts
are obligatory within the sentence structure for American communication (except for the object
“if the verb is intransitive”); whereas, only the verb is obligatory in Japanese communication
(Yamada, 1997, p. 34).
American communication requires the usage of standard pronouns; whereas, Japanese
communication allows for frequent deletion and even the substitution for alternative pronouns,
such as direction pronouns. The deletion of pronouns has more to deal with sasshi, which is “a
strategy where players try to understand as much as possible from the little that is said”
(Yamada, 1997, p. 37). According to Yamada (1997), “Being able to guess at what others are
going to say is central to the Japanese expectation of unspoken interdependence: Like a person
who is only a bun, or part of a larger group, a sentence in Japanese is only a part of the larger
interaction, and consequently often gets completed across communicators rather than by a single
individual on her own” (Yamada, 1997, p. 37). It appears that the substitution of pronouns for
direction pronouns has more to do with amae than it does sasshi. As Yamada (1997) explains, it
“blurs the distinction among individuals” (Yamada, 1997, p. 26). American communication
makes a clear distinction between pronouns, such as “I”, “you”, and “we”; whereas, Japanese
communication uses the terms “kochira, sochira, and achira, which literally mean ‘this way,’
‘that way,’ and a still further ‘that way’” (Yamada, 1997, p. 26). The blur comes when a term,
such as kochira (this way) represents both “I” and “we”, sochira (that way) represents just
“you,” and achira (that way) represents “he,” “she,” or “they” (Yamada, 1997, p. 26). The
individual is a group and the group is an individual; there is an underlying sense of
interdependence in using the direction pronoun as a substitute.
Another type of communication feature is that of “time in tenses” (Yamada, 1997, p. 27-
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
8
28). American communication has a distinction between past, present, and future; whereas,
Japanese communication has the past and ongoing present. This can lead to misunderstandings,
especially in the business realm where projects have clear time lines.
The way each culture seeks to make emphasis differs also. American speakers let the
listener know they are making an emphasis by stressing a particular word. Japanese speakers do
so by positioning the word they are emphasizing to the beginning of a sentence. It is
grammatically correct to do so because “parts of speech can be moved around” in the Japanese
sentence structure (Yamada, 1997, p. 33). This implicit type of emphasis utilized by Japanese
speakers is often overlooked by Americans listeners. On the other end, American speakers often
seem rude to Japanese listeners in their stressing of words (Yamada, 1997, p. 34).
Negation is not surprisingly another feature in communication equipment inasmuch as it
often comes up in the context of comparing language usage. To use double negation is typical in
many languages and is not deemed ungrammatical. With Japanese communication, however,
multiple negation is also grammatically correct (Yamada, 1997, p. 29-31). As Yamada points
out, the only limit is its “comprehensibility” (Yamada, 1997, p. 30). In one example Yamada
(1997) gives, a Japanese businessman states, “Well, uhhm, I would not say I wouldn’t say that
it’s not that you know, it’s definitely out of the question. So in other words, I want to say that it
is not that it wouldn’t happen. I couldn’t say…” (Yamada, 1997, p. 29). In this excerpt, even the
other Japanese businessmen are amused. One even comments, with another finishing his
sentence, “It would be really bad if you did something like that [in a meeting with Americans]”
(Yamada, 1997, p. 29).
Another aspect of negation is the positioning. American communication tends to
“frontload” the negation before the verb; for example, “I do not [negation] like [verb] it”
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
9
(Yamada, 1997, p. 29-31). In Japanese communication, the negation is “backloaded” after the
verb (Yamada, 1997, p. 29-31). Yamada (1997) suggests, “such equipment is particularly useful
in watching the reactions of others before committing to a position. You can start out a sentence
in disagreement, for example, and then change tack and agree” (Yamada, 1997, p. 30). This
coincides with being “others-centered” because it requires “monitoring the reactions of the
person you are talking to by making careful adjustments to the end of a verb allows you to best
consider their feelings” (Yamada, 1997, p. 30). This is one of numerous aspects of
communication that emphasize the point that Americans use “Speaker Talk” and Japanese use
“Listener Talk” (Yamada, 1997, p. 37-51).
There are other interesting aspects of the communication differences that would not
necessarily be considered “communication equipment”. One example would be naming
practices. According to Yamada (1997), Americans typically tell a person upfront what their
preference is for being called. This is odd to the Japanese because their culture has them
“growing into” their names, starting with last name + san (soto or outside group relationship)
and later dropping san. The first name is reserved for uchi or inside group relationship (Yamada,
1997, p. 41-44). The context of who is talking adds another level to the name, as well, since
relationships play a role on the naming (Yamada, 1997, p. 41-44). For instance, a person might
refer to their boss in a humble form that they would not normally use because they are speaking
with the client and the relationship of “we” (the person and their boss) must be humbled below
the level of the client (Yamada, 1997, p. 41-44).
Japanese are often perceived as being very polite, but what is often overlooked is the
deep-seated values that are weaved into their practices. For instance, it is said that the Japanese
never say no. Yamada (1997) points out that the Japanese actually have “a dozen different ways
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
10
of saying no without saying no,” which coincides with the others-centered values, as well as with
keeping amae (Yamada, 1997, p. 44-47). Additionally, they are known for having numerous
“expressions in thanking, apologizing, and inviting others to go first” and greetings that
demonstrate care, as opposed to the greetings of Americans, which consider some type of action
(Yamada, 1997, p. 47-51). Yamada (1997) shows in her examples that American speakers often
utilize the expressions, “What’s up?” and “How are you?” (p. 49). These expressions have the
recipient explaining what they are or have been doing. In contrast, the Japanese utilize “greetings
of care” that are performed to demonstrate amae. The examples Yamada (1997) gives are:
“taihen gobusata shite orimasu” (roughly, “please excuse me for not calling
sooner”) and “itsumo osewa sama de gozaimasu” (roughly, “thanks for always
taking care of me”), “doozo yoroshiku onegai itashimasu” (roughly, “please look
after me,” used similarly as the English “nice to meet you”), and responses like
“okagesama de,” (roughly, “because of you, I’m feeling well”) all show that for
the Japanese, well-being is defined in terms of interdependent care. (p. 50).
Due to the limited scope of this paper, features specific to business communication have
been limited to a few minor points. First, in America, it is typical for workers to have individual
cubicles which define space and emphasize individuality. In Japan, workers tend to share what
Yamada (1997) refers to as a “bull pen” (Yamada, 1997, p. 56). This allows workers to engage in
uchiawase (informal) meetings (Yamada, 1997, p. 55-58). It is during these meetings that a
consensus is made over time (p. 57). By the time meetings are held, a decision has already been
made (p. 57). In contrast, Americans tend to hold meetings, discuss agendas, and make decisions
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
11
as a matter of course (p. 57). Also to be noted is that, in Japan, there is no division of labor as it
relates to job descriptions, as long as the task is within their ability (their level or below)
(Yamada, 1997, p. 53-55). In America, there is an expectation of having a clearly defined job
description. Last, introductions are given in a different manner. Americans tend to say their
name, then sometimes the company following afterward. Japanese speakers identity themselves
within their soto group relationship as: “said first is the company name as the largest organizer,
followed by the family name, and finally and optionally, the bun or fractional part, the first
name” (Yamada, 1997, p. 54).
As previously mentioned, Deborah Tannen had been a professor of Haru Yamada in the
field of sociolinguistics. It is evident that Tannen’s work influenced Yamada’s work in that
Tannen wrote the Foreword for Yamada’s book Different Games, Different Rules: Why
Americans and Japanese Misunderstand Each Other, as well as the style in which the book is
written is reminiscent of Tannen’s work. Those who have read any of Tannen’s books will
quickly recognize the Tannen quality and style in Yamada’s work. With that said, Tannen states
in her Foreword that “Here again readers familiar with my work on gender and language (such
as, for example, You Just Don’t Understand), will hear echoes of patterns I described that tend to
distinguish American women and men” (Yamada, 1997, p. xvii). Yamada brings up this
similarity as well when she states:
“In recent years, some scholars of communication have pointed out the similarity
between Japanese Listener Talk and the American women’s style of
communication the linguist Deborah Tannen calls ‘rapport talk.’ The styles are
alike in two ways: Both prefer interaction based on group rapport over individual
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
12
competition, and both can be characterized as women’s styles. But these
similarities gloss over a major difference. While women’s rapport talk is the
counter force to Speaker Talk in American communication, Listen Talk is
structured on amae that is demonstrated most clearly in the maternal roles of
Japanese
women.
Listener
Talk—the
main
mode
of
Japanese
communication—is borne out of the roles that women play.” (Yamada, 1997,
p. 125). (Emphasis added).
Yamada makes a distinction between “Japanese Listener Talk and the American
women’s style of communication” by stating that “Listener Talk—the main mode of Japanese
communication—is borne out of the roles that women play” (Yamada, 1997, p. 125). In making
this distinction, she failed to state what the American women’s style of communication was borne
out of. Her explanation seemed inadequate and incomplete.
In summary, Japanese and American speakers are essentially operating as participants in
two games (e.g. Sorry and Monopoly) with different goals, different communication rules, and
different relationship rules. Their ‘plays’ (discourse) are based on the rules of the game they
think they are playing. It is not necessarily feasible to expect the speakers to either play one game
or the other. The goals and rules of the games (languages) they are playing are heavily woven
with the threads (yet another metaphor—my own, this time) of their culture and in most cases,
these threads are central themes within their society.
Discourse between Japanese and American Speakers: How Cross-cultural Communication Patterns Contribute to Misunderstandings
13
References
Yamada, Haru. (1997). Different Games, Different Rules. New York: Oxford University Press.