I feel like this article gets too caught up on the like specific examples:
> A translated-example of conversation at a restaurant goes like this:
> Server: What would you like to order?
> Customer: Me, eel.
> This means the customer would like to order eel; it doesn’t mean he/she is an eel.
This true in the USA as well, just with different punctuation. Is it fundamentally different than someone responding with "Me? Eel." ? Not really, in my opinion.
The same is true where people everywhere say "it's difficult" when they mean impossible, or vice versa..
But what doesn't really get driven home is the (I'm assuming) much higher rate of people using indirect-speak in Japan as compared to other countries. It would be neat to see some kind of a breakdown/quantification of that across language/culture.
It seems less like a language thing than it's being made out to be, and more of a cultural thing?
> It seems less like a language thing than it's being made out to be, and more of a cultural thing?
Yes. I think when you're speaking English in the United States, the cultural lens comes from specific context that depends on the conversation. If you're talking with a coworker, it depends on the culture of the company you both work for. If you're talking with a stranger in a bar, it'll be different depending on whether you're gulping martinis at a hotel bar or beer at a punk show. If you're talking with your next-door neighbor, it will depend on whether you both live in a gated community in Plano or a condo in Miami or a co-op in Portland.
I wonder if the article is missing something similar. Do Japanese teenagers who are best friends say, "That party was a little bit quiet, I'm not unhappy that we left" or do they say, "That party SUUUUUCKED! I'm so glad we got the fuck out of there!" Is it the whole language, or is it certain contexts in Japanese society?
I had a prof back in the 80s who used to joke that they were both small island nations with large degree of foreign trade and a history of colonialism.
(the joke is that it's easy to find deep parallels but that they were mosly coincidental -- it was really a criticism of 1980s stereotypical takes about Japan).
I might be going on a limb here, but none of those answers save one would be interpreted as a "No" in Britain. Brits comment if you please.
The save one of those in the list is "“I will consider it in a forward-looking manner,” which feels to be me not so much as a "No" as more a "Why of course why wouldn't I take a look at at it with all this leisurely time I have but in the interim can you please just kindly fuck off please thank you very much."
To me, this seems absurd and counterproductive. But then again, the Dutch are known to be direct communicators.
Im wondering though, if so much of the words are intentionally left ambiguous, where does the fault of a miscommunication typically land? In Dutch culture, the fault almost always lies clearly with the speaker. They should have been clearer. However, if so much of the communication is done by the listener, does the fault of a miscommunication end up there as wllt?
I think the point being made was that the issue of communication across cultures is inherently low context, so it is not reasonable to assume a shared cultural context when talking across this boundary. This may mean it would be better to be clear and direct as to minimize misunderstandings.
I mean, all of the Germanic languages are fairly direct. English has very little ambiguity in general discourse:
Other person: Could you help me move this weekend?
You: No, I have other things to do. / I'd rather not. / I can help you find paid movers. / Etc
Any ambiguity stems from a secondary layer of familiarity / emotional connection.
Meanwhile, I've been to areas where a no was interpreted more as an invitation for negotiation (Catalonia, Mexico, South Italy, etc).
So, at least from my personal experience, the language is less at fault and more the culture being more a default-no/default-yes and/or individualist/communal type culture. That being said, I don't speak Japanese, so perhaps Japanese does have some linguistic limits to direct discourse.
I have been told (in Britain) I can come across as rude because I am usually direct with disagreement rather than making a lot of ceremony about it. I am a native Italian speaker, and I find the English apologetic fear of confrontation even in benign settings (i.e. "I do not think this idea can work") to be infuriating.
Likewise, slavic cultures such as Russian/Eastern-European can seem even more direct and downright hostile if you're not used to dealing with them, because they don't feel the need to mince words and, I guess, prefer clarity and honesty.
I have since learned to be a bit more diplomatic, yet I find my Italian assertiveness can come in useful to deal with standstill situations at work where everyone is tiptoeing around each other in uncertainty and no one wants to call the shots.
At work and in personal setting, I much prefer honesty and being direct than trying to do your utmost not to offend. Avoiding offense requires a lot of assumption about somebody else's state of mind, with the risk of getting it catastrophically wrong because people are generally terrible mind readers. Empathy is a great tool, but the best way to disagree is, in most cases, simply to say "no."
> I have been told (in Britain) I can come across as rude because I am usually direct with disagreement rather than making a lot of ceremony about it. I am a native Italian speaker, and I find the English apologetic fear of confrontation even in benign settings (i.e. "I do not think this idea can work") to be infuriating.
I think that even further reinforces the point too. Canadians, Australians and Americans tend to use more direct language (again, outside of familiarity-based scenarios) compared to the British and Irish; and are seen as particularly rude because of it. The same goes with American businesses doing business in Japan, where "cultural" relations managers are specifically on hand to smooth things over. But from their perspective, there's no use mincing words or dilly-dallying to sign a contract or otherwise close business, especially after weeks-months of schmoozing and negotiating.
This article does little to help navigate the situation it seems. Part of the problem is not providing multiple versions of what "Yes" would look like I think.
I don't know if it was done purposely but it's amusing that "No." is the translation of the answer to a question that is (apparently) not a yes/no question: “I’ve brought a new project plan. What do you think?”
Is the question "What do you think?" supposed to be interpreted as asking a colleague "Can you tell me what you think?" or is the question asked to their boss and is to be interpreted as "Do you like/approve my business plan"? I haven't gotten past that snag.
The article, ironically to someone who is still as clueless and ignorant as prior to reading the article, seems to still have failed to provide enough context to non-Japanese readers in order to be helpful.
>I don't know if it was done purposely but it's amusing that "No." is the translation of the answer to a question that is (apparently) not a yes/no question
The article goes on to say in Japanese, "our sentences don’t have to be grammatically complete in order to make sense. This is especially the case for verbal communication." The point is that all of the examples given are a rejection
>The point is that all of the examples given are a rejection
Yes, but what is the translation of that rejection in English as a response to the question being asked? Is it "No, I won't even bother taking a look at it" or "No, I think your business plan is trash but I'm going to pretend I haven't read it yet and hope you get the message."
For a comedic take on a very American way to do this, Jackie Kashian has a hilarious bit in her special StayKashian about how her salesman father taught her that you should never say no without a number.
Similar thing in the Philippines. A common scenario is someone will invite another to an event, and the answer is "maybe" instead of directly saying yes or no. This also irritated me before until someone gave me a possible explanation: It's actually a privilege for someone to be in control of his personal schedule.
There are a lot of examples on how someone is not privileged enough to be able to fix his own schedule, but one example that I remember is that there are people who have uncertain or irregular salary payment schedules, so even if they really want to join that weekend nightout, they don't know if they will already have their money by that time. Or someone's salary is so low, they are willing to work as much overtime as they can, so they might not immediately commit to an invite because there might be an opportunity to work overtime on that day, night, or the day after.
I found it always strange that Japanese for a long time held an exclusive trade deal with the dutch, ca 17th century. The dutch are not exactly known for their indirectness. (I'm saying this a dutch person)
21 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] thread> A translated-example of conversation at a restaurant goes like this:
> Server: What would you like to order?
> Customer: Me, eel.
> This means the customer would like to order eel; it doesn’t mean he/she is an eel.
This true in the USA as well, just with different punctuation. Is it fundamentally different than someone responding with "Me? Eel." ? Not really, in my opinion.
The same is true where people everywhere say "it's difficult" when they mean impossible, or vice versa..
But what doesn't really get driven home is the (I'm assuming) much higher rate of people using indirect-speak in Japan as compared to other countries. It would be neat to see some kind of a breakdown/quantification of that across language/culture.
It seems less like a language thing than it's being made out to be, and more of a cultural thing?
Yes. I think when you're speaking English in the United States, the cultural lens comes from specific context that depends on the conversation. If you're talking with a coworker, it depends on the culture of the company you both work for. If you're talking with a stranger in a bar, it'll be different depending on whether you're gulping martinis at a hotel bar or beer at a punk show. If you're talking with your next-door neighbor, it will depend on whether you both live in a gated community in Plano or a condo in Miami or a co-op in Portland.
I wonder if the article is missing something similar. Do Japanese teenagers who are best friends say, "That party was a little bit quiet, I'm not unhappy that we left" or do they say, "That party SUUUUUCKED! I'm so glad we got the fuck out of there!" Is it the whole language, or is it certain contexts in Japanese society?
(the joke is that it's easy to find deep parallels but that they were mosly coincidental -- it was really a criticism of 1980s stereotypical takes about Japan).
The save one of those in the list is "“I will consider it in a forward-looking manner,” which feels to be me not so much as a "No" as more a "Why of course why wouldn't I take a look at at it with all this leisurely time I have but in the interim can you please just kindly fuck off please thank you very much."
Im wondering though, if so much of the words are intentionally left ambiguous, where does the fault of a miscommunication typically land? In Dutch culture, the fault almost always lies clearly with the speaker. They should have been clearer. However, if so much of the communication is done by the listener, does the fault of a miscommunication end up there as wllt?
Other person: Could you help me move this weekend? You: No, I have other things to do. / I'd rather not. / I can help you find paid movers. / Etc
Any ambiguity stems from a secondary layer of familiarity / emotional connection.
Meanwhile, I've been to areas where a no was interpreted more as an invitation for negotiation (Catalonia, Mexico, South Italy, etc).
So, at least from my personal experience, the language is less at fault and more the culture being more a default-no/default-yes and/or individualist/communal type culture. That being said, I don't speak Japanese, so perhaps Japanese does have some linguistic limits to direct discourse.
I have been told (in Britain) I can come across as rude because I am usually direct with disagreement rather than making a lot of ceremony about it. I am a native Italian speaker, and I find the English apologetic fear of confrontation even in benign settings (i.e. "I do not think this idea can work") to be infuriating.
Likewise, slavic cultures such as Russian/Eastern-European can seem even more direct and downright hostile if you're not used to dealing with them, because they don't feel the need to mince words and, I guess, prefer clarity and honesty.
I have since learned to be a bit more diplomatic, yet I find my Italian assertiveness can come in useful to deal with standstill situations at work where everyone is tiptoeing around each other in uncertainty and no one wants to call the shots.
At work and in personal setting, I much prefer honesty and being direct than trying to do your utmost not to offend. Avoiding offense requires a lot of assumption about somebody else's state of mind, with the risk of getting it catastrophically wrong because people are generally terrible mind readers. Empathy is a great tool, but the best way to disagree is, in most cases, simply to say "no."
I think that even further reinforces the point too. Canadians, Australians and Americans tend to use more direct language (again, outside of familiarity-based scenarios) compared to the British and Irish; and are seen as particularly rude because of it. The same goes with American businesses doing business in Japan, where "cultural" relations managers are specifically on hand to smooth things over. But from their perspective, there's no use mincing words or dilly-dallying to sign a contract or otherwise close business, especially after weeks-months of schmoozing and negotiating.
I don't know if it was done purposely but it's amusing that "No." is the translation of the answer to a question that is (apparently) not a yes/no question: “I’ve brought a new project plan. What do you think?”
Is the question "What do you think?" supposed to be interpreted as asking a colleague "Can you tell me what you think?" or is the question asked to their boss and is to be interpreted as "Do you like/approve my business plan"? I haven't gotten past that snag.
The article, ironically to someone who is still as clueless and ignorant as prior to reading the article, seems to still have failed to provide enough context to non-Japanese readers in order to be helpful.
The article goes on to say in Japanese, "our sentences don’t have to be grammatically complete in order to make sense. This is especially the case for verbal communication." The point is that all of the examples given are a rejection
Yes, but what is the translation of that rejection in English as a response to the question being asked? Is it "No, I won't even bother taking a look at it" or "No, I think your business plan is trash but I'm going to pretend I haven't read it yet and hope you get the message."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36190015
https://erinmeyer.com/books/the-culture-map/
https://youtu.be/pr3PYJPvmWo?si=BjhMJeEOi3KvGtjc&t=2176
There are a lot of examples on how someone is not privileged enough to be able to fix his own schedule, but one example that I remember is that there are people who have uncertain or irregular salary payment schedules, so even if they really want to join that weekend nightout, they don't know if they will already have their money by that time. Or someone's salary is so low, they are willing to work as much overtime as they can, so they might not immediately commit to an invite because there might be an opportunity to work overtime on that day, night, or the day after.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Netherlands_rela...