Rhetorical Ethos A Bridge Between High-Context and Low-Context Culture

Rhetorical ethos
A bridge between high-context

and low-context cultures?
Charles P. Campbell
New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology (USA)
0. Introduction
Working with people of other nations and cultures is rewarding, but also full
of traps for the unwary. This paper explores how differences in cultural
Copyright © 1998. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
background may affect business* correspondence. Business people from

Northern Europe and North America sometimes fail to communicate effec
tively because they incorrectly assume that their correspondents share their
values. Letters might be more effective if writers used a rhetorical framework
to conceptualize in their letters a sense of their addressees' conditions and of
their own roles in relation to their addressees. Using the example of rhetorical
patterns in English and Chinese business letters, I suggest a way to use
Western rhetorical principles to accommodate other cultural patterns.
1. Cultural influences on rhetorical patterns
1.1. Definitions: rhetoric, culture
The terms rhetoric and culture have several meanings apiece, so definition
seems in order. The word rhetoric is used in the several senses shown in
Cultural Context in Business Communication, edited by Susanne Niemeier, et al., John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998.
ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gmul-ebooks/detail.action?docID=861544.
Created from gmul-ebooks on 2019-05-08 05:41:30.
32 Charles P. Campbell
What is rhetoric? What is culture?

A. Inflated, vague, abstract, and/or A. What your neighbor, who plays
evasive language used by business- dreadful music at high volume and
persons, bureaucrats and politicians lets her dog ruin your garden,
to try to fool the public. doesn't have.
—B. A body of amoral techniques, devel —B. The totality of socially transmitted
oped by sophists and used by pitch- behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, in
men, con artists, and advertisers, to stitutions, and all other products of
convince people to act against their human work and thought character
own best interests. istic of a community or population.
C. A common process whereby people, C. The collective programming of the
with or without formal training, mind which distinguishe the mem
place themselves in relation to a bers of one category of people from
topic and an audience to determine another.
the facts of events in the past, to
deliberate the needful actions to be
taken in future, or to acknowledge
important public matters in the
present.
Figure 1. Definitions of rhetoric Figure 2. Definitions of culture
Figure 1. "A" is the vulgar sense — the way the term is most often used. "B"
is a slant developed by Plato1, who wished to dissociate the "true" from
the merely expedient. "C" is the technical sense of the word, traceable to
Aristotle2, which I will be using here.
For culture (Figure 2), sense "A" is common; it is a way of distinguishing
ourselves from others less enlightened. It is close to sense "C" in recognizing
culture not only as creating commonalities but as making distinctions. Sense
"B," from the American Heritage Dictionary, is too abstract to be useful.
Sense "C" quotes Hofstede, who adds:
National culture is that component of our mental programming which we
share with most of our compatriots as opposed to most other world citizens.
Besides our national component, our cultural programs contain components
associated with our profession, regional background, sex, age group, and the
organizations to which we belong. National cultural programming leads to
patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting.
(quoted in Ulijn & Strother 1995:186)
Quoting Hofstede's definition, Ulijn notes that it is "rather cognition-based,"

and adds, "Of course this national cultural programming is reflected not only
Rhetorical Ethos 33
in international negotiation behavior, but also writing in a foreign language"

(1995:186).
Thus, culturally influenced assumptions and patterns of organization
appear in the English writing of nonnative speakers. What is less obvious to
native speakers of English is that such patterns and assumptions appear in our
own writing, and that they may cause us problems in negotiating with or
writing to people with different cultural backgrounds.
1.2. Where culture and rhetoric meet: contrastive rhetoric
This cultural component of communication has become the subject of study in

a hybrid field called contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan's diagram (Figure 3) is often
used to describe international negotiations in business. Perhaps it is useful
because paragraphing strategies reflect cultural styles. In countries whose
languages derive from old German — including German, Dutch, and English
— negotiation styles tend to be linear and direct.
But these countries also tend to have what Hall calls "low-context
cultures." Hall sees meaning as comprising both context — i.e., stored or
shared information.— and transmitted or explicit information (Figure 4). The
more shared context there is, the less information must be transmitted, and the
less shared context there is, the more information must be transmitted. Low-
context cultures tend to value goals and procedures and short-term, purposive
behavior; high-context cultures tend to value long-term relationships. Low-

context cultures also tend to be individualist, while high-context ones tend to
be more collectivist.
Figure 3. Styles of paragraph development (after Kaplan 1966)
Figure 4. The relation of context to explicit information (after Hall 1983:61)
1.3. Λ culture of individuals
Two decades ago, the American sociologist Slater asserted that the
American's "most characteristic trait is that he imagines himself to be alone
on the continent" (1976:145). This somewhat hyperbolic statement is partly
borne out by the work of Hofstede in the IBM studies reported in Culture's
Consequences (1980) and reformulated in Cultures and Organizations: Soft

ware of the Mind (1991). On an index ranking the countries in the study from
individualist (100) to collectivist (0), only the United States and Australia
ranked in the 90s (1991:53).
Because it is such a large country, Americans may never meet people
who speak different languages and have different values. I live in New
Mexico, a state where English is the newest language and where the aborigi
nal languages, along with Spanish, are still spoken, but even New Mexico has
become more homogeneous within my lifetime. It's a far cry from the land
described in Hall's An Anthropology of Everyday Life (1992) and West of the
Thirties (1994). When Hall first went to the Navajo and Hopi reservations in
1933, the reservations were still so isolated that a Navajo might stop him on
the road to find out the location of a sing (though they lived in isolated hogans,
Navajos had a powerful sense of community and participation.) When I lived
in New Mexico as a child in the 1940s, I could feel certain that anyone with a
Spanish surname could speak Spanish. That is no longer true, as I was
Rhetorical Ethos 35
surprised to discover when I returned to live in New Mexico in 1979.

As in New Mexico, the influence of commerce and electronic media
seems all over the world to be speeding up and spreading wide the normal
processes of cultural accommodation. Cultural leveling tends to follow the
export of television programs, so cultural differences may be fading. But
"culture" is perhaps like a glacier — fluid and fast-moving where it contacts
the air, but frozen and slow-moving at bottom, that is at the level Hall calls
core culture or primary-level (PL) culture. "One of the principal characteris-
tics of PL culture," Hall reminds us (1983:7), "is that it is particularly resistant
to manipulative attempts to change it from the outside."
My aims are more modest. I suggest a strategy for the point at which
glaciers meet, so to speak — to suggest how some knowledge of cultural
characteristics might be combined with some concepts from Western classi-
cal rhetoric to smooth business correspondence at the interface.
2. The business letter as arena of misunderstanding
2.1. All very nice, but who are you?
Figure 5 reproduces a letter to a delegation of Chinese who had visited the

United States. They had expressed some interest in the products of Mr.
Jones's company, so he wrote them a letter, hoping to make some sales.
Dear Sir:
Your name and address were referred to me by the Illinois Department of
Agriculture — Far East Office. They stated that you had expressed an interest in
our products and requested further information.
I am therefore enclosing a brochure which itemizes our products and services.
Please let me know your exact requirements. I will be happy to provide you with
further details.
Thank you for your participation at the Illinois Slide and Catalog Show. I look
forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Pete Jones
Director of Sales
Agri-Equipment Division
Enclosure
Figure 5. Ineffective cross-cultural letter (Source: Boiarsky 1995)
However, as Boiarsky (1995) informs us, his letter drew no response.

The letter follows the cultural conventions of English letters. It is highly
purposive and does not waste the reader's time, since time, to an American, is
money, and money is an abstract value to which Americans are devoted.
To illustrate how greatly rhetorical patterns can vary across cultures, let
me contrast a letter written in English by a Chinese scientist.
2.2. Can Chinese rhetoric survive translation?
Several years ago, a visiting scientist from China was connected with a
research lab where a student of mine was working as an editor intern. The
scientist had drafted a letter (Figure 6), in English, to a Japanese organization
and had asked the intern simply "to put the letter into good English." How
ever, the rhetorical form of the letter was so strange to him that the intern
asked me for advice.
My early readings of the letter (Campbell & Bernick, 1993) were influ
enced by Kaplan's characterization of cultural styles in learning (1966). It is
easy to see here "an approach by indirection," with "things [being] developed
in terms of what they are not, rather than in terms of what they are." This kind
of development is also characteristic of Japanese, as in the Japanese proverb
quoted by Dennett (1988:116): "Not to say is better than to say." At first, to
American eyes, the letter seems hopelessly indirect — it gets to the point only
at the very end. But the letter does have a definite if unfamiliar rhetorical
strategy, and a rather subtle one at that. The Japanese concept kishotenketsu
seems to explain the descriptive but lengthy introductory remarks as well as
the structure. Kishotenketsu is explained this way by a Japanese linguist
quoted by Dennett (1988:116): "First you have the subject, ki, then you raise
it, sho, next roll it, ten, and then . . . you end it beautifully, ketsu" The four
paragraphs resemble that structure: the first paragraph names a subject (ex
plosives), the second "raises" it by mentioning the professional exchanges,
the third "rolls" it by acknowledging Japanese achievements, and the fourth
"ends it beautifully" by offering congratulations.
The scientist's letter can be interpreted through its parallels to
kishotenketsu, but its subtlety and effectiveness can also be appreciated
through the framework of Western rhetoric, in particular the Aristotelian
concept of artistic proofs.
Rhetorical Ethos 37
[Name], Director
The Industrial Explosives Society, Japan
[Address]
[City], Japan
Dear Dr. [Director's name]:
The development of gunpowder was certainly one of the greatest achievements of
the medieval world. European historians have recognized in the first salvoes of
the fourteenth century bombards the death-knell of the castle, and hence of
Western military aristocratic feudalism. The development of modern powder and
high explosive technology pushes the society ahead further, but at the mean time,
it helped several strong countries to invade the weak countries and hence caused
enormous sad result between the peoples.
Evidences show that there was exchange of knowledge of gunpowder and blasting
bombs between Japan and China not later than the thirteenth century. The
relationship between scientists in the field of explosives of these two countries is
improved and becoming better and better since the beginning of this decade.
Professor [A], Professor [B] and many other Japanese scholars visited China: and
at the same time many Chinese colleagues visited Japan. I enjoyed very much the
kind invitation of Professor [A] to give a guest lecture on the Academic Confer
ence of The Industrial Explosives Society, Japan in the May of 1987. Very kind
arrangement by Professor [B] made it possible for me to visit the University of
Tokyo, the University of Kyoto, and many other institutions. I am very much
indebted to the generosity of my hosts for their warm reception.
In these years of close relationship with Japanese colleagues, I am deeply

impressed on two points. The first point is that they always put the safety problem
on the first place. According to the statistics, the frequency rate of injury (FRI) of
industries is keeping going down from almost 40 in the early fifties to as low as
2.22 in 1987. In 1985, the FRI of the U. S. A. is 9.90 in compared with 2.52 of
Japan. The second point is that the four main islands, Hokkaido, Honshu,
Shikoku, and Kyushu, have been linked by bridges and tunnels completely in
1988 and reliable transportation routes inter-connecting these islands have been
provided. The explosive scientists and engineers played a big role in the underwa
ter blasting and construction work.
On the occasion of the fifty years anniversary of the Industrial Explosives
Society, Japan, I would like to send my sincere congratulations for your past
achievements and my best wishes for your future success. I am also looking
forward to a more intimate cooperation between scientists and engineers in the
field of explosive science and technology for our two great neighboring countries.
Yours very sincerely,
[Chinese scientist's signature]
Figure 6. An example of Chinese rhetoric
2.3. Aristotle's insight
Aristotle noted that there are two kinds of persuasion, one stemming from
sources external to the persuader (inartistic or atechnic proofs — witnesses,
contracts, tortures, oaths) 3 and those the speaker has to invent — entechnic
proofs. "One must use the former and invent the latter" (Aristotle 1991:37).
These entechnic proofs he divided into three parts, as shown in Figure 7.
Aristotle did not use a triangular graphic, but his differentiation of atechnic
and entechnic proofs and his division of the entechnic into three parts sug
gests that he saw ethos, logos, and pathos as inseparable. I regard the entech
nic proof complex as unitary, in much the same way Saussure (1959) gave the
two indivisible parts of the unitary sign two different names. In other words,
I'd argue that any written document always has all three elements, even
though they are not equally well developed. That is, the logos represents
arguments and evidence in the matter under discussion, pathos (emotion) the
reader's stake in that matter, and ethos (character) the claims of the author. As
I have argued elsewhere (Campbell 1995), professional writing in this century
has been antirhetorical and has mistrusted appeals to ethos and particularly
to pathos. Others (e.g. Bock 1995, Brockmann 1989) have noted similar
tendencies. 4
Thus, in contrasting the Pete Jones letter (Figure 5) with the Chinese
scientist's letter, what we see within the Asiatic indirect approach is a differ
ence in how character and emotion are handled. The Jones letter gives almost
Figure 7. Aristotle's "Communication Triangle"
Rhetorical Ethos 39
no sense of Jones's character as a human; the "I" is reduced to a function.

Similarly, "you" has no distinguishing characteristics either. Lacking any
appeal to either ethos or pathos, the letter is sterile.
2.4. The Chinese scientist's letter and the artistic proofs
In the scientist's letter (Figure 6), the allusion to the long, often troubled
history of relations between China and Japan forms a dark backdrop. A
Japanese, most likely, already knows that the gunpowder that ended Euro
pean feudalism was invented in China. Nor is that reader likely to misinterpret
the remark about stronger countries invading weaker ones, causing "enor
mous sad result". This somber background will contrast with the more hope
ful message that is to follow.
The second paragraph moves us immediately from the thirteenth to the
twentieth century, and is perhaps doing several things at once: establishing
the writer's credentials as a scientist {ethos), acknowledging the present
enlightened attitude of the Japanese {pathos), and encouraging continuance of
scientific exchanges {logos).
The third paragraph seems puzzling — why do Japanese readers need to
be told the names of their four main islands, to be reminded of their interisland
connectors, and to have cited back to them figures that likely came from the
Explosives Society of Japan in the first place? Again, in the terms of Aristote
lian rhetoric, the writer, a non-Japanese, establishes credibility {ethos) by

demonstrating his knowledge {logos) and by acknowledging the accomplish
ments of the readers {pathos). Or, in terms of Asian rhetoric, he creates face
for himself and gives face to his readers.
So when in the last paragraph the writer finally delivers the message of
congratulations, he has already built a relationship with his reader and the
message carries some weight. The ostensible subject of the letter is congratu
lations on achievements in explosives technology, but the psychological aim
is relation-building.
2.5. The scientist's letter and the Chinese tradition in writing
Additional evidence that the letter represents "good writing" in the Chinese
sense comes from Li Xiao-ming's "Good Writing" in Cross-cultural Context.
Li's interest is in seeing what is valued in the teaching of composition in the
USA as compared to China. He quotes a Chinese teacher of writing:

Basically we think a piece of writing should have four components: intro
duction, development, transition, and closure [qi3 cheng2 zhuan3 he2]. I
think this basic format is still valid because they are in accord with the way
we think . . . . We have three thousand years of writing history . . . Teachers
have the responsibility to teach a student the successful writing experiences
of our forefathers. (1996:73-74)
Another Chinese teacher adds:

It is very unlikely that one would start a piece from a form; we all start from
ideas or from experience in life. . . . Especially in a country like China that
has a literary history of thousands of years, it is arrogant to think that one
can surpass his predecessors without first learning from them. (1996:74)
Two characteristics that contribute to good writing are the qualities qing and
li. As the second teacher describes them:
Qing has great persuasive powers. Li (reason) is inseparable from qing: qing
is couched in li, and li is couched in qing. Li (reason) is different from lizhi
(rational). Being rational, one is emotionally controlled, somber, com
posed, exercising only intellectual and reasoning faculties. Reason, how
ever, deals with truths. Truths, though existing in objectivity, are
approached and learned only through subjectivity. Truths should be learned
with passion and conviction. (1966:55)
I wish that Li Xiao-ming had said more about the differences the writing
systems make in the way writers conceive and express the world. It is
exceedingly difficult to know which of the many Chinese characters that
correspond roughly to the sound qing might be meant, and in Chinese, the
character is less ambiguous than the spoken word. A Chinese-American
friend pointed out to me that li has the sense of both "reasoning" and
"decorum"; it seems similar to the ancient Greek nomos, often translated
"law" but not meaning written or codified law — closer to "the right way of
being or behaving that everybody knows," or perhaps to "common sense."
The conception of reason couched in emotion marks a difference be
tween Chinese and Western rhetorics. While li appears roughly analogous to
logos, qing seems to represent the axis of relationship between ethos and
pathos. That is, Chinese rhetoric does not appear to make Aristotle's distinc
tion between speaker and audience. Emotions are not yours or mine, but ours.
Emotion, though, is not usually expressed overtly. The indirect quality
comes from jing. Quoting again the first teacher:
Rhetorical Ethos 41
Traditionally, there are two ways to express one's qing: either directly
express it, or indirectly through a description of nature. And because
Chinese are mostly reserved and introverted in temperament, we prefer to
"couch qing in jing" suggest what one feels through the description of
nature. (1996:87).
I think we can find some qing couched in jing in the first paragraph, though
most of the letter is more direct. But in any event, whether we look at the letter
from an Aristotelian or a Chinese perspective, we can see that there is a subtle
strategy at work.
The qualities of the scientist's letter that make it seem like "good writ
ing" also make it less effective, possibly because it was written in English and
not Chinese, but also because the kind of writing Li studied was the personal
essay. The letter to the Explosives Society does seem more like an essay than
like the usual Western business letter.
3. Good writing? For whom?
3.1. An Eastern vote for a Western structure
A few years ago, when my colleague Philip Bernick was working in Japan,
we had a chance to get reactions to the Chinese scientist's letter from a
number of Asians who had strong English skills and were writing and editing
documents in English for a large electronics company. The surprise for
Bernick and me in our 1993 survey was that our Asian respondents didn't like
the letter. Our Asian editors (six women and five men) also made a number of
guesses about the author of the letter (Figure 8): he was well educated, much
• Writer's goals were unclear.

• Doesn't really read like a letter.
• Three unnecessary paragraphs.
• Needs to be shorter.
• Inappropriate way for authors to develop ethos.
• Style would be more appropriate in Japanese, or even Chinese, but for
• English it is clearly inappropriate.
• Length detracts from letter, and makes it ineffective and confusing.
Figure 8. Asian editors ' reaction to letter written in English with Chinese structure
older (probably at least in his 70's) and was from an upper-middle- or upper-
class home. These comments were motivated by the excessive politeness. Our
editors also felt that if the letter had been translated directly into Japanese that
it would have been more acceptable than it was in English, but that translation
wouldn't make it more effective or less confusing.
3.2. A not-unexpected agreement from Northern Europeans
The structure of the scientist's letter seems strange to Northern European

technical communicators as well, judging by the preferences expressed at
Forum 95 (Campbell & Bernick, 1996). People there were asked to react to
three versions — the original, a version edited for idiom but not structure, and
a radically revised version. The "radical" version (Figure 9) was preferred by
most respondents (native speakers of English, German, Norwegian, Dutch,
and Danish): it gets to what Westerners believe to be the point of the letter at
once.
Figure 9's version of the letter, by putting the (apparent) point first,
makes it harder to build the relationship as the writer did so carefully in the
original — who is this "I" in the first paragraph? Putting the hope for future
cooperation into the first paragraph still allows the second paragraph to do
useful work, but leaves the third paragraph an orphan: it supports the reasons
for congratulation, now a paragraph and a half away. And since the conclu
sion has become the beginning, it has to repeat the congratulation to gain
some kind of closure.
3.3. "Letter writing and text should be different than literature"
There may be another issue behind the Western and Asian responses to the
letter: the difference between "good" writing and effective writing. As one of
the respondents at Forum 95 observed, "Letter writing and text should be
different than literature." At least in China and the United States, there seems
to be a tradition of teaching writing as writing, without reference to the actual
needs of readers. The kind of writing done by the Chinese students in Li's
study is part of a millennia-old tradition.
Rhetorical Ethos 43
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Industrial Explosives Society, Japan, I send my

sincere congratulations for your past achievements and my best wishes for your
future success. I am also looking forward to even more intimate cooperation in
explosive science and technology between scientists and engineers of our two
great neighboring countries.
In the field of explosives, the relationship between Japanese and Chinese scien
tists has improved steadily since the beginning of this decade. Professor [A],
Professor [B], and many other Japanese scholars visited China; many of my
Chinese colleagues have visited Japan. I enjoyed very much the kind invitation of
Professor [A] to give a guest lecture at the Academic Conference of The Industrial
Explosives Society, Japan, in May 1987. Very kind arrangements by Professor
[B] made it possible for me to visit the University of Tokyo, the University of
Kyoto, and many other institutions. I am very much indebted to the generosity of
my hosts for their warm reception.
In these years of close relationship with Japanese colleagues, I am deeply
impressed on two points. First, they always give high priority to the problem of
safety. The frequency rate of injury (FRI) of industries has continued to decrease,
from almost 40 in the early 1950s to as low as 2.22 in 1987. In 1985, the FRI of the
United States of America was 9.90, compared with Japan's 2.52. Second, explo
sive scientists and engineers played a big role in the underwater blasting and
construction work in linking the four main islands by bridges and tunnels.
Completed in 1988, this work has provided reliable transportation routes connect
ing these islands.
Again, congratulations on these achievements to the Industrial Explosives Soci
ety, Japan, with best wishes for continuing future success.
Figure 9. Westernized letter of congratulation
The kind of writing done by the American students in his study, on the other
hand, comes from a much shorter tradition. It is the tradition of the departments
of English in American universities, which around 1900 lost interest in teaching
rhetoric and focused instead on literature (see Stewart 1982, Berlin 1987), but
still got stuck with teaching writing to several generations of bemused first-year
students. This literary turn is described by Winterowd (1996:27) as "the death
of pathos,'' responsibility for which he lays at the feet of Ralph Waldo Emerson,
"the essentialized Romantic Idealist whose solipsism . . . [results in] a rhetoric
(or antirhetoric) that is self-expressive rather than communicative."
Self-expression is what has been chiefly taught in composition classes.
Winterowd (1996:34) notes that "of the three sorts of rhetoric named by
Aristotle, only epideictic is not aimed at action." Epideictic is also called

ceremonial rhetoric. Its province is the present, whereas forensic rhetoric tries
to establish what happened in the past and deliberative rhetoric tries to set a
course for the future. In rhetorical terms, business letters are not often
ceremonial; they usually try to explain why something happened or exhort
someone to do something.
The "Explosives Society" letter seems ceremonial, and therefore unusual
for a business context. So perhaps it should not be so surprising the Asian
readers of English tended to agree with the Northern Europeans. This agree
ment indicates that where documents in English are concerned, they should
follow the cultural conventions of English letters.
However, since business letters that do follow the conventions of being
direct, blunt, and objective seem not to be always effective, perhaps con
sciously employing the artistic proofs could improve business letters.
4. What can people from low-context cultures do?
It does seem possible to adapt Western rhetoric's conceptual framework of

entechnic proofs so as to include ethos and pathos, thereby achieving some
thing like qing. The Jones letter in Figure 5, as a Chinese writing teacher
might explain, has managed to separate li and qing and to provide none of the
latter. It does not acknowledge its recipients as humans with whom one might
build a relationship, and relationship-building is important almost everywhere
except in the low-context Western cultures. True, it does use the personal
pronouns I and you, but a reader gets no sense of that I as a person. Even in the
terms of Western rhetoric, it's a cold letter — there is little ethos, personal or
corporate, to establish credibility or identification, nor is there much pathos,
awareness of the reader's condition or needs.
One way to deal with the problem of corresponding across cultures, one
also recommended by Ulijn & Strother (1995:234), is to use people of the
appropriate cultural background within your own company to do the writing,
as did the company in Boiarsky's example. The second letter (Figure 10) did
receive a number of responses.
Rhetorical Ethos 45
Dear Mr. Yen Zen-jiu:
I hope that you have had a safe journey home and that you have found your family
in good health. The midwestern part of our country which you graciously visited
continues to have wet weather, but I am thankful for the rain after our two years of
drought.
Ag-World wishes to thank you for your participation at the state Agricultural
Convention and for stopping by our booth.
Our firm is situated in Bloomington, Illinois, the heart of grain and cattle country.
It has a history of 10 years' experience in selling livestock and livestock equip
ment. It has trade relations with more than 45 countries in the world. Our firm is
well known for its excellent service and good quality products.
In 1987 we sold 168 hogs to China. We wish to establish relations with China on
a regular basis. We would like to know whether our breeding livestock and
livestock equipment, such as Pork-Preg, Pork-alert, and Beef-o-meter, could
benefit you in any way. I will be very happy to provide you with further
information.
I am also enclosing two price lists of our equipment; one is the regular price, the
other one is the pricing for demonstrators.
May your seasons be fruitful and plentiful.
Sincerely,
Tan Wen-lan
Figure 10: More effective cross-cultural letter (Source: Boiarsky 1995)
Though formulaic, the first paragraph of Tan's letter establishes the basis
of relationship. The second paragraph gives face to the reader, and the third
establishes the writer's face. Since the mode of identification is different in
Chinese than in Western languages, it couches qing in jing through the
imagery of weather, which, to people in agribusiness, is a subject of constant
concern. Translating this opening strategy into the terms of Western rhetoric,
the opening works along the ethos-pathos axis of Aristotle's triangle (Figure
7) by establishing a "commons", or meeting ground Pathos, acknowledging
the condition of the reader, is followed by ethos, establishing the writer's
organizational credibility. Only then comes the matter or logos of the letter:
the offer to provide product information.
For business-letter writers in low-context cultures writing in English to

readers in high-context cultures (Latin or Asian), this advice may be as simple
as remembering that their cultures predispose readers to be more interested in
long-term relations with reliable people than in products or profits for their
own sake. Hence, letters begin with paragraphs that establish common ground
and show understanding of the readers. This strategy, in my own experience,
works pretty well even for readers in low-context cultures.
Notes
1. See the dialog Gorgias, in which Plato has Socrates compare rhetoric to cookery and
classify both as branches of the art of pandering, which "pays no regard to the welfare of
its object, but catches fools with the bait of ephemeral pleasure and tricks them into
holding it in the highest esteem" (Plato 1971:46).
2. This definition combines the ideas of "see[ing] the available means of persuasion in each
case" (Aristotle 1991:35); the artistic proofs of character, emotion, and content of
argument (37-39); and the three species of rhetoric: judicial or forensic (past), legislative
or deliberative (future), and epideictic or demonstrative (47-48).
3. Physical evidence, the sort of facts that to Westerners speak for themselves, seem to have
played little role in Athenian justice.
4. There is some evidence that the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos has shifted within this
century. Brockmann (1989) notes that ethical exhortation in manuals around 1900 was
fairly usual and served to remind readers of shared civic values, whereas manuals today
shy away from ethical exhortation. Bock thinks management-dictated use of simplified
language to facilitate translation and eliminate cultural reference has led to "Technical
communication acts involving writer and product instead of writer and reader" (1995).
Coney (1992) has shown how texts can theorize roles for their readers — a function that
we might characterize as providing a "you" within the text so that the reader can find a
role by which to make meaning of the text. I've noticed myself that computer manuals
seldom theorize a role for me. That is, they seldom tell me why certain features might be
helpful or why I might want to use them.
References
Aristotle. 1991. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Tr. George A.

Kennedy. New York: Oxford.
Berlin, James A. 1987. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges,
1900-1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bock, Gabriele. 1995. "The Disappearing of Communication Culture in Technical Docu-
Rhetorical Ethos 47
ments". Forum 95 Preseedings. In: M. F. Steehouder (ed.). INTECOM, the Interna

tional Council for Technical Communication, n.p.
Boiarsky, Carolyn. 1995. "The relationship between cultural and rhetorical conventions:
Engaging in international communication". Technical Communication Quarterly 4:
245-259.
Brockmann, R. John. 1989. "A historical consideration of ethics and the technical writer:
From the 1880's to the 1980's". In: R. John Brockmann and Fern Rook (eds.),
Technical Communication and Ethics. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Commu
nication, pp. 107-112.
Campbell, Charles P. and Philip Bernick. 1993. "Editors, "good English," and interna
tional readers". IPCC 93 Proceedings. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 38-43.
Campbell, Charles P. 1995. "Ethos: Character and ethics in technical writing". IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication 38, 3: 132-138.
Campbell, Charles P. and Philip Bernick. 1996. "What counts as "Good English" in an
international business letter?" In: M. F. Steehouder (ed.), Forum 95 Postharvest.
INTECOM, the International Council for Technical Communication, n.p.
Coney, Mary B. 1992. Technical readers and their rhetorical roles. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication 35 (June):58-63.
Dennett, Joann Temple. 1988. ""Not to say is-better than to say": How rhetorical structure
reflects cultural context in Japanese-English technical writing". IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication 31: 116-9.
Hall, Edward T. 1983. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York:
Doubleday.
Hall, Edward T. 1992. An Anthropology of Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, Edward T. 1994. West of the Thirties. New York: Doubleday.
Hofstede, Geert H. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York :
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, Geert H. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Kaplan, Robert B. 1966. "Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education". Lan
guage Learning 16: 1-20.
Li, Xiao-ming. 1996. "Good Writing" in cross-cultural context. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Plato. 1971. Gorgios. Tr. Walter Hamilton. Harmonds worth: Penguin.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics (1891). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Slater, Philip. 1976. The Pursuit of Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking Point.
Rev. ed. Boston: Beacon.
Stewart, Donald C. 1982. "Two model teachers and the harvardization of English
departments". In: James J. Murphy (ed.), The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern
Writing. New York: Modern Language Association, pp. 118-129.
Ulijn, Jan M. and Judith B. Strother. 1995. Communicating in Business and Technology:
From Psycholinguistic Theory to International Practice. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.
Winterowd, W. Ross. 1996. "Emerson and the death of pathos. JAC: A Journal of
Composition Theory 16: 27-40.

Rhetorical Ethos A Bridge Between High-Context and Low-Context Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetorical Ethos A Bridge Between High-Context and Low-Context Culture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetorical Ethos A Bridge Between High-Context and Low-Context Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetorical ethos

A bridge between high-context

background may affect business* correspondence. Business people from

1. Cultural influences on rhetorical patterns

1.1. Definitions: rhetoric, culture

What is rhetoric? What is culture?

Figure 1. Definitions of rhetoric Figure 2. Definitions of culture

Quoting Hofstede's definition, Ulijn notes that it is "rather cognition-based,"

in international negotiation behavior, but also writing in a foreign language"

1.2. Where culture and rhetoric meet: contrastive rhetoric

This cultural component of communication has become the subject of study in

behavior; high-context cultures tend to value long-term relationships. Low-

Figure 3. Styles of paragraph development (after Kaplan 1966)

Figure 4. The relation of context to explicit information (after Hall 1983:61)

1.3. Λ culture of individuals

Consequences (1980) and reformulated in Cultures and Organizations: Soft­

surprised to discover when I returned to live in New Mexico in 1979.

2. The business letter as arena of misunderstanding

2.1. All very nice, but who are you?

Figure 5 reproduces a letter to a delegation of Chinese who had visited the

Jones's company, so he wrote them a letter, hoping to make some sales.

However, as Boiarsky (1995) informs us, his letter drew no response.

2.2. Can Chinese rhetoric survive translation?

In these years of close relationship with Japanese colleagues, I am deeply

Figure 6. An example of Chinese rhetoric

2.3. Aristotle's insight

Figure 7. Aristotle's "Communication Triangle"

no sense of Jones's character as a human; the "I" is reduced to a function.

2.4. The Chinese scientist's letter and the artistic proofs

lian rhetoric, the writer, a non-Japanese, establishes credibility {ethos) by

2.5. The scientist's letter and the Chinese tradition in writing

USA as compared to China. He quotes a Chinese teacher of writing:

Another Chinese teacher adds:

3. Good writing? For whom?

3.1. An Eastern vote for a Western structure

• Writer's goals were unclear.

3.2. A not-unexpected agreement from Northern Europeans

The structure of the scientist's letter seems strange to Northern European

3.3. "Letter writing and text should be different than literature"

On the fiftieth anniversary of the Industrial Explosives Society, Japan, I send my

ety, Japan, with best wishes for continuing future success.

Figure 9. Westernized letter of congratulation

Aristotle, only epideictic is not aimed at action." Epideictic is also called

4. What can people from low-context cultures do?

It does seem possible to adapt Western rhetoric's conceptual framework of

Dear Mr. Yen Zen-jiu:

Figure 10: More effective cross-cultural letter (Source: Boiarsky 1995)

For business-letter writers in low-context cultures writing in English to

Aristotle. 1991. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Tr. George A.

ments". Forum 95 Preseedings. In: M. F. Steehouder (ed.). INTECOM, the Interna­

You might also like

Consequences (1980) and reformulated in Cultures and Organizations: Soft

ments". Forum 95 Preseedings. In: M. F. Steehouder (ed.). INTECOM, the Interna