Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education
gpt.icon
Robert Kaplan's 1966 article "Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education" is an important study that analyzed differences in sentence structure and logical development among people from different linguistic backgrounds and laid the foundation for contrastive rhetoric (Contrastive Rhetoric] by analyzing the differences in sentence structure and logical development between people of different linguistic backgrounds. Paper Outline
Kaplan analyzed the English compositions of approximately 600 international students and noted that native language thought patterns influence the structure of English sentences.
He has schematized the logical structure of each language as follows
English: Straightforward, central opinions and conclusions are stated at the beginning.
Semitic (e.g. Arabic): a series of continuous coordinate structures.
Oriental languages (e.g., Japanese, Chinese): spiral, indirect approach to reaching conclusions.
Romance languages (French, Spanish, etc.): take a lateral approach and approach the subject matter indirectly.
Russian: zigzag pattern, approaching the subject matter from multiple angles.
These patterns are said to reflect the thinking and communication styles of each culture.
Logical development of Japanese
The following characteristics of Japanese sentence structure have been noted:
Indirect approach: Do not directly state conclusions or assertions, but emphasize background information and contextual explanations.
Leave it to the reader's interpretation: the writer does not explicitly state his/her intention, but the reader is expected to take the meaning from the context.
Kiyo-sei-tenketsu" structure: a traditional structure in which things are explained in order and a conclusion is given at the end.
Criticisms and subsequent research
Kaplan's model was also criticized for oversimplifying the rhetorical structure of each language.
However, this study was a starting point for understanding cross-cultural differences in sentence structure and has influenced many subsequent studies.
For example, Hinds (1987) points out that in Japanese writing, the reader is responsible for reading consistency, and the writer does not make everything explicit.
Kobayashi (1984) also shows that logical development varies not only with language but also with the place and situation in which it is used.
summary
Kaplan's 1966 paper revealed how different cultures and language backgrounds affect the logical development of a text, and played an important role in developing understanding in cross-cultural communication and education.
Subsequent studies have provided more in-depth analysis of the characteristics of each language and culture, and have accumulated knowledge to promote cross-cultural understanding.
---