Lesson 17. Patterns of Thought.

1) Thought patterns.
2) Systems of logic.
3) Patterns of reasoning.
Thought patterns
In order to communicate effectively across cultures, you need to understand the cultural thought
patterns behind the language of communication. The way we think equally depends on culture, and it is
influenced by the culture. Different cultures are distinguished by various thought patterns.
A thought pattern expresses the interaction of a number of concepts. It represents a way to think
about the underlying subject matter. The most obvious example of a thought pattern is provided by
language itself. As a thought pattern, our language shapes our way of thinking in more ways than we
could ever express. It influences how we hear information presented.
None of the systems is better or worse than any other, but it is different. Lets study the following
example of translation. The original text was written in Russian, and the translation attempts to capture
the structure of the original as much as possible, but without sacrificing meaning completely.
On the 14th of October, Kruschev left the stage of history. Was it a plot the result
of which was that Kruschev was out of business remains not clear. It is very probable
that even if it were anything resembling a plot it would not be for the complete removal
of Kruschev from political guidance, but rather a pressure exerted .to obtain some
changes in his policies: for continuations of his policies of peaceful co-existence in
international relations or making it as far as possible a situation to avoid formal
rupture with the Chinese communist party and at any rate not to go unobstructed to
such a rupture and in the area of internal politics, especially .in the section of
economics, to continue efforts of a certain softening of dogmatism, but without the
hurried and not sufficiently reasoned experimentation, which became the characteristic
traits of Kruschevs politics in recent years.
Some of the difficulty in this paragraph is linguistic rather than rhetorical. The structure of the
Russian sentence is entirely different from the structure of the English sentence. However, some of the
linguistic difficulty is closely related to the rhetorical difficulty. The above paragraph is composed of
three sentences. The first two are very short, while the last is extremely long, constituting about three
quarters of the paragraph. It is made up of a series of presumably parallel constructions and a number of
subordinate structures. At least half of these are irrelevant to the central idea of the paragraph in the sense
that they are parenthetical amplifications of structurally related subordinate elements.
In 1966, Robert B. Kaplan introduced his cultural thought patterns approach based on contrastive
rhetoric holds that people in different cultures organize their ideas differently. Rhetoric is a mode of
thinking or a mode of finding all available means for the achievement of a designated end. Accordingly,
rhetoric concerns itself basically with what goes on in the mind rather than with what comes out of the
mouth... Rhetoric is concerned with factors of analysis, data gathering, interpretation, and synthesis. It is
not universal and differs from culture to culture.
Superficially, the way people think may be graphically represented in the following manner:

1. English (includes Germanic languages such as German, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, and
Swedish) is portrayed by Kaplan graphically as an arrow. This style of communication
may be viewed by other cultural groups as abrupt or inappropriate.
2. Semitic (for example, Arabic or Hebrew) thoughts are expressed in a series of parallel
ideas, both positive and negative. Coordination is valued over subordination.
3. Oriental (Languages of Asia, specifically Chinese and Korean, but not Japanese)
communication is indirect, portrayed by Kaplan as a spiral. A topic is not addressed, but
viewed from various perspectives working around the point. Largely, Asian
communication is listening centered; the ability to listen (and a special talent for detecting
various communicative cues) is treated as equally important as, if not more important than,
the ability to speak.
4. Romance (Latin-based languages such as French, Italian and Spanish) are portrayed as an
arrow with sharp turns in the shaft. Communication often digresses. It is fine to introduce
extraneous material, which adds to the richness of the communication.
5. Russian communication, like in Romance languages, is often digressive. The digression
may include a series of parallel ideas.
The way people in a culture think influences the way they interpret messages they receive from
others. We should examine two aspects of our patterns of thought: systems of logic and systems of
reasoning. These two aspects of patterns of thought are interrelated highly, and they are separated here
only to organize the discussion.
Systems of logic
Observers of individualistic cultures characterize their predominant mode of thinking as logical,
analytic, and linear. Their most characteristic form is known as scientific induction, which emphasizes
concentrated attention on the raw materials provided by the senses and applying rational principles to
those raw materials to bring them into a more or less orderly and self-consistent whole.
An associated characteristic of individualistic cultures, particularly that of the United States, is the
tendency to see the world in terms of dichotomies (Stewart, 1972). This characteristic is illustrated by the
individualistic tendency to think in terms of good-evil, right-wrong, true-false, and beautiful-ugly. Stewart
describes this tendency to polarize as simplifying the view of the world, predisposing to action and
providing individuals with a typical method of evaluating and judging by means of a comparison.
While sharing a great deal of commonality with thinking in individualistic cultures in general,
thinking by the people in the United States is distinguishable from that of Europeans by its heavier
emphasis on empirical facts, induction, and operationalism. Stewart (1972) comments:
For [North] Americans, the world is composed of facts not ideas. Their process of thinking is
generally inductive, beginning with facts and then proceeding to ideas. But the movement from the
concrete to the more abstract is seldom a complete success, for [North] Americans have a recurrent need
to reaffirm their theories and <...> their ideas require validation by application and by becoming
institutionalized. (pp. 22-23)
Europeans, in general, attach primacy to ideas and theories. Their deductive and abstract style of
thinking gives priority to the conceptual world. Although the empirical world is not necessarily ignored, it
often is treated with a symbolic and demonstrational attitude. Deductive thinkers are likely to have much
more confidence in their ideas and theories, so it suffices for them to show one or two connections
between their concepts and the empirical world. They do not feel compelled to gather facts and statistics,
as is the way in the United States, and they tend to generalize from one concept to another concept, or to
facts, by means of logic. Europeans have a greater faith and trust in the powers of thought, while people
in the United States place a greater significance on their methods of empirical observation and
measurement (Stewart, 1972). Although the cultures of the United States and western Europe are in some
respects dissimilar, they share certain basic characteristics of field-independent, low-context cultures.
Both cultures emphasize a fundamental cognitive pattern that is logical, categorical, linear, and analytic.
Compared to those of individualistic cultures, the thinking patterns used in collectivistic cultures
are often characterized as relational, integrative, holistic, and intuitive. Asians, for example, are observed
2

to have a central mode of thinking that is not concerned as much with logic and analysis as it is with
intuitive knowing and mediative introspection and contemplation. Asians tend to emphasize the unity
between the subjective and the objective realms of the inner and the outer conditions, and thus engage
less in analyzing a topic by breaking it down into smaller units as North Americans often do. The direct
sense of rapport with the outer object whether a person, idea, or thing is the primary end result of
Asian thinking (Gulick, 1962, p. 127).
The intuitive thinking of collectivists allows holistic and intimate identification with all the
contextual cues in a communication, thus making the patterns of perception highly contextual. The
intuitive style of thinking provides a powerful cognitive mechanism for developing a harmonious rapport
with the other person and the environment. This mechanism enables collectivists to be sensitive to the
most subtle undercurrents of emotion and mood in a particular communication event and interpersonal
relationship without having to engage in a deliberate attempt to logically analyze the situation.
For example, American conversation resembles a tennis or volleyball match. You can either serve
a new idea, or aim for the ball another player just hit. You have to move quickly; otherwise, someone else
may get there first. In contrast, Japanese conversation is like bowling. Everybody watches respectfully
and quietly and takes turns. You arent expected to respond to the previous statement, but to aim at the
conversation goals.
One must keep in mind that these identified cultural patterns do not mean individualists think
using only logic and reason or collectivists think using only intuition. Different cultures place different
emphasis on particular methods of thinking, rather than absolute differences in kind. While collectivists
do think and reason, as well as use their intuitive mode of seeing things without logical analysis, the
significance of knowledge through intuition is accepted and valued more extensively in collectivistic
cultures than in individualistic cultures.
Patterns of reasoning
Glenn (1981) isolates two dimensions that can be used to describe patterns of reasoning across
cultures: abstractive-associative and universalism-particularism.
When knowledge is acquired through direct experience with the environment, it is associative.
When thought is codified into precise meanings, abstraction takes place. Associative patterns are diffuse,
indefinite, and rigid, while abstractive patterns tend to be articulated, definite, and flexible. Glenn points
out that associative reasoning is marked by arbitrary ties between informational units. The primary
process for the acquisition of knowledge appears to be associative. Abstraction appears as the primary
process of the organization of knowledge. That is, initially we acquire knowledge through direct
experience with the environment, and after that, we tend to organize the knowledge in our mind.
The use of associative thought does not readily allow new or novel information to be integrated.
Associative patterns of information processing depend upon oral, face-to-face communication. Those who
depend on these patterns find it difficult to follow written instructions (which require abstraction). For
instance, when you read scientific literature, you might need the help of your professor to explain certain
parts of the material for the sake of complete understanding.
While associative and abstract thought exist in all cultures, one tends to predominate. An emphasis
on associative thought is related to determining identity from ascription, and an emphasis on abstraction
is related to deriving identity from achievement because achievement requires the use of abstraction
(Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).
Universalism involves seeing the world through conceptualizations that are reflected in definitions
of words. Universalistic processing does not take into consideration experiences that make individuals
different; it is abstract. Particularization, in contrast, recognizes specifics; it tends to be associative
(Glenn, 1981). Particularistic information processing goes from specific observations to generalizations,
while universalistic begins with broad categories and determines how observations fit the categories.
These correspond to inductive and deductive processes respectively. Triandis (1984) points out that
particularistic thought tends to be probabilistic and universalistic thought tends to be absolutistic. It
appears that universalistic patterns of thought dominate in cultures high in uncertainty avoidance, while
particularistic patterns of thought dominate in cultures low in uncertainty avoidance (Gudykunst & TingTomey, 1988).
3