Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ho-min Sohn
(University of Hawaii)
1. Introduction
Despite the revolutionary advances in modern communication
technu~ogy,
,our understanding of the human dimension in communication is still relatively limited. This is particularly the case with intercultural communication, where the causes of communication interference or failure, as well
as of misunderstandings, are due to differences not only in linguistic structure and usage, but in the underlying cognitive cultureY
Culture-bound
The research n,ported h<ere. which was initiated by a small grant awarded by the University of Hawaii Center for Korean StudieR in 1982, was conducted mainly in Korea
in the summer of l983 under a U.S. Office of Education Fulbright Hays Faculty Research
/\broad _\ward. The initial version of this paper was presented at An International
Convention on CrosscultLmll Communication: Encounters and Conflicts held in Seoul,
July 28-Sl, 1983. I would like to extend my deep appreciation to the Hankuk University of Foreign St!ldies for the assistance and accommodation providell to me. notably
to Professors Dong-Son Kim, Young-Jo Kim, Sang-Ki Lee, KiHong Kirn, Yeun Kyu
Chung, YoungSoo Yae, Kyu Chul Cho, Soon-IIam Park, and In-Seok Yang who l1as gene
rousJy invited this paper for publication.
94
variance,,
not only the form,function relation of the foreign language used and the
social constraints on how certain things are said, but also the basic values
and other cognitive aspects of acceptable behavior in each other's society.
The aim of this paper is to show how communicative patterns differ from
society to society due to underlying differences in cognitive culture; our
m;thod will
b~
attitudes,
postulates, prejudices, etc., partly because other cognitive aspects are correlated with values in one way or another,
95
Ho-min Sohn
in this second function of language. Referentially equivalent linguisticforms and expressions across cultures may have different social or connotative meanings due largely to value differences. These facts suggest that
not onJv linguistic competence in the target language, but also a thorough
grasp
,)!
tual. cvnceptual. or emotive, is essential to successful intercultural communicatlon. It is often said that cultural barriers are more difficult and timeconsuming to overcome than linguistic barriers.
Defining culture as "all those l1istorical1y created designs for living ...
which exist at any given time as potential guides for the behavior of
men." many recent anthropologists claim that culture is a structured system of patterned behavior (e.g., Lado 1968 : 111).
different ways. C. Kluckhohn, et al. (1951) observe that the one feature
common to all the usages is the idea of oughtness,
which is detached
the cultural
96
it is inevitable that
2. Universality
Although our main concern is sociolinguistic differences,
let us briefly
it is
traditions,
conventions, and experiences that vary from culture to culture. There are
therefore both universality and distinctiveness in human behavior, the fo
emer usually existing as broad abstract principles and the latter as culturally specific details. In addition,
respectively,
that the
speaker must be sincere and speak the truth, that the speaker must say as
Ho-min Sohn
97
and friendly, It seems that all human languages have some mechanism to
express politeness in Lakoff's sense(i.e., softening intonation, use of modal
elements such as past or future forms, softening adverbials, tag forms,
cogitatives, ellipses, indirect speech or conversational implicature, polite
nonverbal behavior, etc.). Hedging devices of this sort are effective and
polite in normal contexts. If the speech act is to the benefit of the addresee or the speech situation is a critical one, direct expressions with a high
degree of illocutionary force, such as an imperative, are frequently more
effective and more polite.
Viewing sociolinguistics as applied pragmatics and rebutting the doctrine
of cultural relativity in interaction,
98
Circumstances determining
choice of strategy :
Lesser
1'
Greater
cases when the FTA is used for great urgency, desperation, or efficiency;
or in the addressee's interest; or where the speaker is vastly superior in
power to the addressee,
ground, to convey that the speaker and the addressee are cooperators, and
to fulfill the addressee's desire for something. In the following, some strat-egies in this category are illustrated.
Use
in~group
identity markers
Seek agreement
Eg.: A: "I had a flat tire on the way home."
B: "Oh my!, a flat tire!"
Ho-min Sohn
Eg.: "Look, I'm sure you don't mind if I remind you to do the dishes.tonight."
Include boUt speaker and addressee in the activity
eration).
his territory,
Eg.: "You don't have any manila envelopes, do you by any chance?'"
Minimize the imposition
Eg.: "I just want to ask you if I can borrow a little bit of paper."
Give deference
Eg.: "Excuse me, sir, but would you mind if I close the window?"
Apologize
Eg.: "I'm sure you must be very busy, but ... "
Impersonalize speaker and hearer
100
res~-c,-.,ibility
in~ crpret
municative intention.)
Give hhtts
Eg.: "What a boring movie!" (C.i.: "Let's leave.")
"It's cold in here." (C. i.: "Shut the window.")
-Under,-Late
Be vague
Eg. : "Perhaps someone did something naughty."
101
Homin Sohn
discussed thus far do not explain why Americans treat everyone more br
less equally in speech acts, while Koreans are overly helpful and cour
teous to some people but act with no regard for others; why an angry
American tends to upgrade address terms, as from "John" to
"Mr. John
nicknames like "Bob" and "Liz", while Korean adults most frequently use
the deferential speech style for smooth daily social interaction. None of
the
when
an inferior f:1mily member does something for him, or when someone invites him to dinner or gives him a gift. Further, none of the pragmatic
principles can explain why Americans and Koreans are so different in their
nonverbcol be1hwior. These and hundreds of other differences are regarded
not as 1andom, unrelated facts, but n.s arising from something systemati
cally diffen:nt in the two peoples'
3. Value Difference
3. 1. Value Systems of Americans and Koreans
equality,
confrontation.
competitiveness,
achievement, a future-time orientation, doing (rather than being), informality, impermanence, and depersonalization (cf., Stewart 1972). As for
Koreans', some authors propound that contemporary as well as traditional
Koreans stress roughly the opposite of the American values.
Others note
102
"that Koreans' values have undergone drastic change toward Western values
since the end of World War Two due to the structural change of Korean
society from the traditional vertical to modern horizontal form (see Sohn
1983 for these opposing views). To present the conclusion first, despite
the fact that contemporary Koreans, especially the younger generation,
have been much Westernized in their behavior, and
many intellectual,
social and political leaders have been educated in Western culture, tradi
tionalism is still persistent in a slightly dilute form in the consciousness
of most Koreans.
of Koreans.
It is true, as some social anthropologists have experienced, that the value
At the
moment, we can only speak about the values of a society in relative terms,
compared with those of some other societies, as they are deduced from
the members' general communicative patterns. Viewing a society's values
as describable only in terms of degree rather than in absolute terms, I
would like to tentatively propose that the five partly inter locking dimensions (or scales) of value orientations given below serve as a framework
for the purpose of this study. It is assumed that the terms on the right
hand and the left-hand sides are the broad value categories for the two
ends of each scale on which any society (or part of it) may be located.
Under each value category we can subsume many more specific values.
For example,
privacy, freedom,
independence,
of hierarchism.
ATOMISTIC-MECHA-
Americans
NISTIC VALUES
A. INDIVIDUALISM-------- ---COLLECTIVISM
IIomin Sohn
B. EGALITARIANISM----
103
----HIERARCHISM
C. CONFRONTATION-
--INDIRECTNESS
D. PRAGMATISM-----
--FORMALISM
E. RATIONALISM----------- --EMOTIONALISM
The terms "atomistic-mechanistic" and "holistic" are borrowed from Yoshikawa (1982), who uses them to denote two opposing world views, i.e.,
those of Americans and Japanese, that he assumes are connected to the
current left- and right-brain theory.
Of the five value dimensions.
the most characteristic distinctions between the West and Asia in general.
and between Americans and Koreans in particular.
The above diagram demonstrates that in the value orientations reflected
in their communicative patterns, Americans are more individualistic, egalitarian, aonfrontational (i.e., direct), pragmatic, and rationalistic than Koreans, whereas Koreans are relatively more collectivistic,
hierarchical,
'children', chinfcwzt
'friend', wuceng
'friendship',
Korean
expressions in this
104
'connection', yemlye,
simlye
'concern',.
others' mind'
English-Korean bilinguals will quickly note significant differences in
connotative and social meaning between the Korean terms and their English
equivalents. All the Korean terms carry the sense of deep human interre
latedness and interdependence in addition to the inherent denotative meanings. For example, in his study of the concept of kohymzg, Goldberg (19
79 : 90) states that "/.;ohyang...
kin and neighbors; it is the place from which one derives one's identity."
As br the concept of hyoto
'filial duty',
loyalty, obedience,
service,
lasting friends who are around the speaker's age and with whom the speaker
uses an extremely intimate sr:eech style on a reciprocal basis. It is not
on1y the connotation that differs between the Korean terms and their
English counterparts in (a). The Korean terms are extensively verbalized
in daily utterances, while the English equivalents are either very
infre-
terms like
kayincwuui
egocentricism~
Ho~min
105
Sohn
Korean does not yet have proper terms for such English concepts as 'privacy', 'salfconcept', and 'identity'.
b) Syntactic differences are also suggestive of different values. As Kim
(1975) points out,
name second,
name followed by gradually larger units. The Koreans' practice is a mirror image of American practice, with given name placed at the end. Another structural difference is that while English noun phrases, including
personal nouns and pronouns, must be expressed in sentences, Korean per
sonal nouns and pronouns (especially
"m~-
Some Koreans
the speaker is
prefer to use
lwyyo "I (lit. we) enjoy drinking liquor." That is, unlike the practice in
106
traditional Korean way, offered a towel with two hands to her husband
Homin Sohn
107
when he had finished washing his face. To her surprise and dismay, this
American grew angry and snatched the towel away from her, saying that
he did not wish his freedom and privacy impinged upon by her.
b) Unless invited out,
paying restaurant bills, whereas in Korea, one person usually pays the
.entire hill.
c) In drinking, Americans fill their own glasses and do not pass an emp
ty glass to others,
rule. (The traditional custom of coughing before entering a room is disappearing in Korea.)
e) Koreans frequently visit relatives, friends,
108
Intercultural Communication in
Cogniti~v
Vah!es
Due to the
dependency on
is evidenced,
for example, in frequent utterances of old Korean parents who take pride
in being dependent on their children (Park 1979). Unlike the situation in
the United States, where one must learn to "stand up for
his rights" in
handling various affairs and defend his rights when they are threatened,
in Korea zmhyey, favors graciously given and willingly returned. provide
a much smoother and more harmonious way of handling things in various
relationships in society (Kalton 1979 : 11-2).
Koreans' daily conversations frequently relate to what is going on with
relatives. friends, and other acquaintances, including snatches of gossip.
As Park (1979) puts it, Koreans are generally more concerned with how
others think of them than with how they regard themselves. Probably for
this reason. Koreans, unlike individua1istic Americans,
to fashion as it pertains to clothing,
housing, shopping,
furnitnrc:,
chil-
dren's education, etc. The whole Korean people appear to move as a single,
massive unit. In Korea, both family and social relationships of all sorts are
characterized by a deep awareness of interrelatedness.
Koreans' communicative patterns reveal that their collectivism is somewhat similar to that of the Japanese. Lebra (1976 : 25) propounds that "the
Japanese concern for belonging relates to the tendency toward collectivism,
which is expressed by an individual's identification with the collective
goal of the group to which he belongs. Collectivism thus involves
cooper~
ation and solidarity, and the sentimental desire for the warm feeling of
ittai kan ('feeling of oneness')
with fellow
members of
one's group is
109
Ho-min Sohn
noninvolvement.
two close friends. There are many nonverbal behaviors acceptable only
.among in-group members.
d) Americans are willing to talk to strangers or people they don't know
110
out~
Amer~
they pursue, but rarely enter into close friendships. Koreans tend to have
fewer, but much closer friends.
Unlike independent Americans, tend to feel uneasy and alienated without
the feeling of belonging and therefore strive to be included in groups.
There is an unusually strong family tie in Korea,
both
lll
llomin Sohn
names as terms of address in many settings (Mead 1963 : 7-8, Brown and
Ford 1964, Buren 1974 : 68,
For example, a
professor and a graduate student may use reciprocal title+ last name at
their initial stage of acquaintance. Sooner or later, the professor usually
starts to use the student's first name to show friendship. As their intimacy
grows, the student may also use the professor's first name.
The same is
deference-
soldier derives his will to fight from a sense of loyalty to the other men
in the immediate group rather than to authority.
In spite of the strong egalitarian value orientation, Americans also rna
nifest a certain degree of hierarchism in all walks of their life. For example, observe the cases listed below, which are also applicable to Koreans.
112
between a teacher and a student (e.g., .:v.Ir. +last name- first name). Thus,
such terms may be arranged as follows in the order of decreasing power:
title sequence (e.g., "Mr. President"), title alone (e.g., "professor", ''sir",
"madam"), title-1-last name (e.g., "Professor Smith"), last name alone (e.
g., "Smith"), full first name (e.g., "James''), nickname (e.g, "Jim"), and
affectionate nickname (e.g.,
(1964). Buren (1974), ErvinTripp (1971), Hijitida and Sohn (1983), etc.
b) While there is nothing to prevent a superior from using "we" to
include someone in an inferior social position,
vs. "gentleman", "give" vs. "bestow", "bit" vs. "piece", "book" vs. "volu
me", "Hi" vs. "Good Morning", "will/do you" vs. "would you", etc. (cf.,
Brown and Levinson 1978: 186).
Mr. Smith'' Cvs. "Hi, John"), "We look forward very much to dining (vs.
"eating") with you" and "Excuse me, but would you (vs. "do you")mind
if I open the window?"
we
can use "You had better do this at once" or "You should do this at once"
to equals or subordinates,
you do this at once" or "Don't you think that you should do this at once"
would be more appropriate (Kuno 1977 : 323).
Although the above cases attest to the existence of Americans' value of
hierarchism, the degree is much lower than that of Koreans.
Evidencing
113
llo-min Sohn
reference, which is
the only systematic honorific pattern. is much smaller than that of Korean
(Hijirida and Sohn 1983). For example, the set of American title sequences
include "Mr. President", "Mr. Secretary", and "Mr.
Chairman", at most,
whereas Korean title sequences constitute an open fet, which is used for
both address and reference terms, including taytlumglyeng kakha(lit. 'His
Exell ency President'), canggwan-nim (lit.
'Mr. Driver'),
paksa-nint (lit. 'Mr. Ph.D.'), son-nim (lit. 'Mr. Guest'), !tycug-nim (lit.
'Mr. Older Brother'), etc. American siblings are considered
to be equals
and address each other on a first name basis, whereas Korean siblings are
unequal and on non"reciprocal terms (e.g., hycng-nim 'older brother'<--
first name). Koreans have no expressions equivalent to Americans' "This
is my brother" or "This is my sister." Either "This is my older brother/
sister" or "This is my younger brother/sister" must be used. In addressing
uncles and aunts, Americans make no distinctions based on whether a relation is on the father's
older or younger than the parent, or whether he is consanguious or an inlaw. All of these distinctions are reflected in Korean. In America, an elder by approximately fifteen or more years gives first name to his junior
while receiving title-: last name(Brown and Ford 1964 : 236, Brown 1965 :
68, Ervin-Tripp
Be~
Martin (19M), D.
114
Value~
(familiar)', ne 'you (plain)'), as well as terms denoting a social superior's family member, possession, action, or manner, and a social inferior's.
humble action (e.g, samo-nim, puin
manwula, cip-salam 'wife (plain)',
, wife (deferential)'
tayk (def.)
ttanim (def.) vs. ttal (plain) 'daughter', kyey (def.) vs. iss(plain) 'stay',
cmu??ur (def.) vs. ca (plain) 'sleep', ca psum (def.) vs. mek (plain) 'eat',
Similarly,
certain
kkamccikhata
'clever'. The
rification.
e) Korean has six different
blunt (e.g.,
-so), familiar
-supnita),
(e.g., -ney),
Ho-min Sohn
languages~
Koreans may not use any of the second person pronouns to a superior
person or a stranger adult. except in such exceptional contexts as in a
fight. Instead, nominal substitutes like sensayng-nim (lit. 'teacher'), emeni
'mother', and sacang-ni m 'company president' occur in the
pronominal
'sir,
based on
solidarity.
h) In all levels of private conversations, meetings, and discussions, only
a person in a socially superior position is assertive and expressive, while
his social inferiors usually just listen, occasionally expressing agreement
in the junctures in the speech of the social superior. The inferiors seldom
oppose the superior's views or opinions, unless very indirectly. Thus, in
American academic circles, young newcomers frequently attempt to establish themselves by aggressively attacking the established views of older
authorities, whereas a Korean must wait his turn rather than challenge:
his seniors' views. In Korea, such expressive acts as jokes and compliments.
are not generally allowed to be performed toward one's seniors.
116
people like storekeepers and bellboys call male strangers sacang-nim (lit.
'Mr. Company President'). Very frequently, a Korean retains for life the
highest professional title he has ever held.
Moreover,
strangers meeting
for the first time exchange name cards listing in detail their professional
positions;
they
standing.
j) Koreans' hierarchical communicative patterns are conspicuous in non
entering a room.
seating,
etc. are
Mr.
first mme), Koreans view age as one of the primary criteria for showing
117
Ho-m111 Sohn
pects of Korean social life-even in a promotion or the election of a chairman or president. While among out-group members in Korea only three
major stages of age (childhood, adolescence,
and adulthood)
are socially
and linguistically significant, within an in-group of relatives, club members, neighbors, or students, even two or three years' difference in age is
significant enough to engender sibling-like asymmetrical modes
of com-
munication. Furthermore, unlike Americans who often do not know the ages
of even their closest friends, Koreans are keenly sensitive to the age of
Probably any Korean is
no matter how
many he or she has. A Korean frequently reveals his or her age on the
initial encounter and does not hesitate to ask a new acquaintance about
his or her age, as mentioned above. One important social rule of communication is that a much younger Korean should ask an older addressee to
lower the speech level if the latter is a prospective in-group member. This
is an effort to establish a more congenial asymmetrical power relationship
based on age.
Although it is frequently
Aside from
vs. "Mr.",
assumption that females use more polite speech than males, the sex variable does not seem very significant in the United States (cf., Lakoff 1975,
Kramer 1975, Kuno 1977, Kramarae 1981, Bak 1982, etc.).
Sex was a significant power variable in traditional Korea, and it still is
among many Koreans of the older generation.
use
118
Valu~s
caney and an intimate level (a). One may still use expressions like Yeca
ka cayswu' e psi 'Gosh! I am unlcuky because of a female!' or Amthal k i
UJutmyen ci p an i manghanta 'When a hen crows, the house is doomed',
than Americans. In
hierarchy of a public or private organization and between people of differ,ent social statuses, as between a person in a socially recognized professional field
(e.g., a professor,
a doctor, a lawyer,
a politician,
a company
119
rank, power,
does not mean that Koreans do not have symmetrical interaction. Egalita
rianism exists between two power equals, e.g., classmates, activity friends,
co-workers, colleagues of equal rank,
not belong to the same group tend to be on equal basis regardless of their
age or status difference. No communicatively significant power distinction
is noticed nowadays, for example, between a taxi driver and his fare;
who use ldsa-nim (Lit. 'Mr.
120
Our sociolinguistic evidence reveals that in contrast to Americans' emphasis on confrontation, directness, and frankness, Koreans are rather indirect in communicative behavior.
ideas and feelings is highly respected among Americans in that the American social system rests upon articulation and discussion as the primary
mode of inquiry, learning, negotiation, and decision making. On the other
hand, as among Japanese (Lebra 1976), indirectness is conspicuous in various communicative interactions and social exchanges among Koreans.
Some specific examples are given below:
a) While Americans have a variety of address terms for spouses (e.g.,
"Darling," "Honey." ''John"), Koreans have not developed particular address terms. A Korean wife may use a ZERO term to her husband until she
has had a child, when she may use
_____ __
,
6) A ;irnilar situauJI! is
r~port~d
121
Ho-min Sohn
regardless of rank or
'eye measure')'.
In daily
Conversational
among
it."
Mr. Kim: Sicanghasil t!teyn-tey Jtaka-si-ci-yo.
use of
deny the positive evaluation (e.g., "Oh, no. It's nothing"). Similarly, an
outsider's praise of a person's family member,
child-
have no words to express .... "As observed at the end of the above dialo
gue, a Korean should not be enthusiastic about an invitation or a gift
from another. He should decline it mildly at first, accepting it only after
Ho~min
123
Sohn
As Kim (1975),
Park (1979), and others have pointed out, Americans' "yes" and "no" are
to be taken at face value, whereas Korean counterparts are frequently not
Koreans' "yes" does not necessarily signal agreement, but means more or
less the same as "I see" in many settings, whle their "no" to an offer is
given purely out of courtesy in many cases.
,each other's face, whereas Americans would be more likely to judge such
responses as uncooperative or even unfriendly.
h) While modesty, an aspect of indirectness, is negligible in Amerkan
.culture. it is highly valued in Korea. As Klopf and park (1982 : 50)
put
124
to the
vividly-American couples' open expression of their Jove vs. Koreans' suppression of their passion, Americans' frank vs. Koreans' humble gestures
(bowing, shuffling in a doorway while urging another to enter first; handing things to others with two hands),
front of the giver vs. Koreans' opening in his absence, etc. While Americans do not do things that they do not wish to do, Koreans frequently
d~r
125
Ho-min Sohn
Similarly, Stewart
without adhering to coherent personal philosophies and systematic ideologies. Furthermore, Americans are said to prefer to pursue their social life
under conditions that minimize incurring social obligations. Indeed, Korean
immigrants to the United States are initially struck by Americans' informality and friendliness, their search for convenience and practical benefit,
and their clear distinction between work and play.
Related to Americans' pragmatism is F.Kluckhohn's (1963) insistence on
American predominance of doing (that is, "getting things done", "keeping
busy", "being active") and of achievement and visible accomplishments.
Contemporary Koreans, especially in urban areas, are also strongly doingand achievement-oriented, although still constrained by seniority to a.
~<.:-ge
patterns that attest to American pragmatism and Koreans' relative formalism are given below:
a) Americans' most commonly used pattern of nominal address for smooth
social interaction is the nickname, as compared with Koreans' (family
name) -r scnsayJZg-nim. Single syllable nicknames like "Jim," "Bob," "Liz",
and "Bea" are terms with which the speaker feels most comfortable, friendly,
and intimate, but the terms lack the connotation of affection, childishness,
on the other
hand, avoid using an adult's given name in favor of his title alone, his
given name+title, or teknonymy (e.g., Yongswu apcci 'Yongswu's father',
apem-a' (child's) dad' (referring to one's own son). Given names are not
126
culty with which Korean adults change their speech styles, are attributed
to differences in the values under consideration.
An American professor
and colleague who used to be his student can easily use a symmetrical
speech style; i.e., they can place themselves on a first name basis. ln a
parallel setting in Korea, asymmetry is maintained for life. My own sur
vey shows that quite a few American students,
dents, who use title+ last name when addressing their professors either in
class
01
'Mr. Kim,
Ho-mln sohn
127
are usually simple and inexpensive and given from a superior to an inferior, while the reverse is generally true among Koreans; and unlike Americans, Korean guests rarely appear without bringing gifts.
f) It
Kluckhohn(1954 :
96) observes that friends and membership groups change easily as Americans shift status or locale, and that Americans' social life lacks permanence, personal attachment, or depth. As Glenn (1966) has said of Russian, Koreans expect to form a deep bond with another person and assume
the "obligation of almost constant companionship," due probably to their
conservative values, as wlle as to their emotionalism.
g) American culture does not attribute particular meaning to place of
birth, family occupation, political views, education, or ways of dressing,
whereas all of these are particularly important in Korean social life.
In short, the average American considers formality pompous and unnaturaL while formality and conservatism are still shared by average Kore
ans despite the fact that they have imported various elements of material,
behavioral, and spiritual culture from the United States for the past four
decades. The Confucian emphasis on regard for others has led traditional
Koreans to be excessively sensitive to the concept of cheymyen 'face' and
128
human inter-
actions, even between close friends, take the form of business transactions. 7 '
While Americans tend to be impersonal in their interpersonal relations,
the Korean people may be characterized largely as emotional or affective,
owing probably to their collectivistic consciousness. In most social interactions among Koreans, emotion plays a major role. Without personalization, human relationships can hardly proceed smoothly in Korea.
This
is a combination
'love', 'affection',
'sentiment', and 'sympathy'. There are many stative verbs which show the
speaker's deep compassion or sympathy toward the addressee or a third
person,
such as sepsephata
'sorry,
pitiful,'
anssulcpta 'sorry, sad (dialectal)', akkapla 'pitiful, sad to say', etc. (for
Cat puthakhapnita.
'Nice to have met you'. (Lit. ''I hope you will look after me."
7) r\ h:ortan who has lived in Am~rka for an extended period of time would perceive
Americans wry fri~ndly at the initial stage of thdr association but ratht:r culd at their
later stage because, in ~pite of their long acquaintance, Americans hardly change their
attitude. In tlli$ conn~ction, it l1aB been point~d out by BChoJars that ArnEfcan rationalIBm makes human relationship ratl1er mechanical.
129
Homin Sohn
to refuse to talk
any further.
d) While Americans tend to reach certain decisions on the objective me
rits of each case, Koreans frequently put great weight on personal factors
as well. Whether you know someone or not makes a great deal of differ
ence in Korean social life and interpersonal communication. Such concepts
as sen pay 'senior', hwu pay 'junior',
susung 'teacher',
ceyca 'student',
chinchek 'relative', and anun pun 'acquaintance' mean much and contribute greatly to smooth communicative interaction. 8 '
Due to the emotionalism and personalism of Koreans, people act rather
8) KaJton (1979: 14) has made an interesting observation in this regard: "... Americans
would probably say that ability counts most but connections help; the Korean approach
is more likely to be that connections weigh heavily but ability is also necessary. Thus
blood relationships, friendships, and school ties are of great importance in Korean society, and it is frequently diffic11lt for one to 'get his foot in the door' as an outsider
with no established relationships or connections".
130
typical
Similarly, hyeng-nim
'older brother,'
'calculating'
9) Due probably t;-Confucian teaching that there should be a strict distinction in their
social life between male and female, average Koreans seem to feel much more confortable among the people of the same sex.
131
IIomin Sohn
this perspective,
132
societies, gradually narrowing the differences of their cultural traits, ineluding their value systems.
The value dimensions discussed thus far in relation to communicative
patterns can be understood with reference to the respective societies' roots
in their traditions, in that different value orientations that shape societies
differently have been formed by different traditions of cognitive culture.
As Kalton (1979 : 3) and others have pointed out,
influenced the
whole East Asian cultural sphere including Korea. With the decline of
Korean Buddhism by the sixteenth century, Neo-Confudanism,
the moral and social doctrine of the
containing
came to dominate the intellectual and spiritual life of the people (e.g..
Kalton ibid. : 4). Thus, the Confucian approach stresses filial duty, respect
for others, harmony,
social hierarchism,
Ho-min Sohn
133
verbal or nonverbal,
when using a foreign language as a medium of communication. For instance, the most important strategies in communicating with Americans are
to honor the inviolability of individualism and egalitarianism, whereas the
most desired strategies in interacting with Koreans are to use the language
of collectivism and hierarchism.
Living in the age of cultural pluralism, with the world shrinking day
by day, the general public is now required more strongly than ever to
attain comprehensive and conscious awareness of internationalism and global cooperation in all aspects of life,
134
"Spirit in place:
social order". In D.R. McCann, J. Middleton, and E.J. Shulz (eds.), Studies on Korea
t'n transition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Center for Korean Studies.
Grice, H.P. 1975. "Logic and conversation". In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds. ), Syntax and semantics 3. New York: Academic Press.
Hatch, E. 1983. "Foreword". In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds.), Socio!z"nguistics and
language acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Hijirida, Kyoko and Ho-min Sohn. 1983.
Mass:
135
Ho-min Sohn
Kluckhohn, F.R. 1963. "Some reflections on the nature of cultural integration and
change". In E.A. Tiryakian(ed.), Sadological theory, values and sociocultural change:
Essays in honor of P.A. Sorokin. New York: Free Press.
Kluckhohn, F.R. and F.L. Strodtbeck. 1965.
York: Row, Pelcrson.
analys1's. Rowley,
Kramer, C. 1975. "Sex-related differences in address systems." Anthropological Linguistics 17. 5 : 198-210.
Kuno, S. 1977. "Eigo ni okeru keigo" (Honorifics in English). In Keigo: Iwanami
kooza nihongo 4, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Lado, R. 1968. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Lakoff, R. 1973. "The logic of politeness: or, minding your p's and q's." In C. Corum, T.C. Smith-Stark, and A. Weiser (eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting
of the Chicago Ltnguistic Sodety. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Lin
guistics.
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and women's place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lebra, T.S. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: The University Press of
Hawaii.
Lee, Dong Jae. 1975. "Some problems in learning Korean second-person pronouns."
In Ho-min Sohn (ed.), The Korean language: Its structure and social projection. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Center for Korean Studies.
Lee, Kyu-Tae. 1977. Hankwukin uy uysikkwuco (Structure of Koreans' consciousness)
2 vols. Seoul: Munlisa.
Lukoff, F. 1977. "Ceremonial and expressive uses of the styles of address of Korean."
In Chin-W. Kim (ed.), Papers in Korean linguistics. Columbia: Hornbeam Press.
Martin, S.E. 1964. "Speech levels in Japan and Korea." In D. Hymes (ed.), Lan
guage in culture and society. New York: Harper and Row.
Mead, M. 1963. "The factor of culture." In M. Torre (ed.), The selection of per
sonnel for international services. Geneva: Federation for Mental Health.
Park, Myung-Seok. 1979.
136
1-14.
Stewart, E.C. 1972. American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Chicago: Intercultural Press: Orientation to action. In E.L. Smith and L.F. Luce (eds.),
Toward internationalism. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Stouffer, S.A., et al. The American soldier. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Szalay, L.B. and G.L Fisher. 1979. "Communication overseas." In E.L. Smith and
L.F. Luce (eds.). Toward internationalism. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Sohn, Homin. 1983. "Power and solidarity in the Korean Language." Papers in Linguistics. International Circle of Korean Linguistics.
Suh, Cheong-Soo. 1979. "Sahoykwuco pyentong kwa hankwuke kyengcpep uy chwui"
(Social change and Korean honorific shift). Sengkok Nonchong 10: 186-221.
Yoshikawa, M. 1982. "Japanese and Amedcan modes of communication and implications for managerial and organizational behavior." Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Communication Theory Eastern and Western Perspectives.
Yokohama, Japan, July 1982.