论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Different culture has different thought patterns and language expressive forms. When China feels offended， the Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic response almost invariably contains the words “hurt feelings” to describe the damage done to the Chinese people. The expression “hurts the feelings of the Chinese people” is frequently used in communications from the PRC government， whereas it is not common in the statements of other governments. Although as a formulaic language， the translation of a common Chinese expression is literally and socially doubted by English readers. Enlightened by the relationship between thought and language， this paper will explore the thought pattern differences from three perspectives， respectively， collectivism vs. individualism， implicitness vs. explicitness， obscurity vs. accuracy， in order to explain and understand the emergence and obsession of “hurting Chinese people’s feelings.”
【Key words】hurt Chinese people’s feelings； Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis； thought pattern difference
INTRODCTION
The expression “hurts the feelings of the Chinese people” is frequently used in communications from the PRC government. When China feels offended， the Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic response almost invariably contains the words “hurt feelings” to describe the damage done to the Chinese people. Fang Kecheng， a curious Chinese blogger and journalism master’s degree candidate at Peking University， has collected the number of times the Chinese people’s feelings have been hurt and what countries have done it the most. His thesis showed a sharp distinction between the Mao era （1949-1978） when Chinese feelings were hurt only three times， and the reform era （1978-present） when a bar graph he created showed hurt feelings spiking at 11 times in 1989 and 1998 and 12 times in 2000. Besides， Fang went to the online archives of People’s Daily and found that between 1946 and 2006 exactly 21 countries and organizations have hurt the feelings of all 1.3 billion or so Chinese people. Japan was the worst offender， with 58 times beginning in 1985. Apparently this expression is used rather often， whereas it is not common in the statements of other governments. So， its sheer ubiquity makes one wonder：why this obsession with damaged sensitivity？
Plato once said：“I have an idea：while mind is thinking， it is talking to herself”. According to Plato， it is through language that the speaker’s real intention can be known and thinking is talking to oneself， or is a form of monologue. Consequently， without thought， language would be meaningless；without language， thought would have no form and would not be known to others. Enlightened by the relationship between thought and language， this paper aims to investigate the obsession of “hurting the feelings of Chinese people” from the perspective of the thought pattern differences between English and Chinese. THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE
A famous hypothesis is put forward by the American anthropologist-linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf， which is called this notion， is commonly referred to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis contains two levels of meanings：Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativism.
Linguistic determinism refers to the idea that language we use to some extent determines the way in which we view and think about the world around us. The concept has generally been divided into two parts—“strong determinism” and “weak determinism.” Strong determinism is the extreme version of the theory， stating that language actually determines thought， that language and thought are identical. Weak determinism holds the view that thought is merely affected by or influenced by our languages. This version of determinism is widely accepted today. Linguistic relativity refers to the distinctions encoded in one language are unique to that language alone， Thus， speakers of different languages are said to think in different ways. It has made a great sensation in history.
In this paper， the thought pattern differences will be illustrated from three perspectives， respectively， collectivism vs. individualism， implicitness vs. explicitness， obscurity vs. accuracy， in order to explain and understand the emergence and obsession of “hurting Chinese people’s feelings.”
Collectivism vs. Individualism
Individualism refers to loosely knit social networks. People in individual cultures define themselves primarily as independent individuals and make their primary commitment for themselves. People in this culture focus their goals exclusively on self-interest. In the contrast， collectivism is characterized by individuals who subordinate their personal goals to the goals of some collectives. In many situations， many people in collectivist cultures have internalized the norms of their collectives so completely that there is no such thing as a distinction between in-group goals and personal goals. Collectivism holds that the group is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. “Hurts Chinese people’s feelings” is frequently used in diplomatic communications from the PRC government. The circumlocution is often used within the government to suggest that a preferred point of view has massive support. To some degree， it implies that somehow the Chinese nation is unified in its outlook and reaction， and prone to the same emotional reaction. However， as time passes， Chinese are ever-more diverse in their opinions， and free to speak them. Implicitness vs. Explicitness
Chinese value implicitness and think expressing themselves too frankly is frivolous. This kind of thinking tendency is introvert. The personality of being introvert makes ancient Chinese people inclined to be “stable and quiet”. They like to express themselves not in a straight-forward way. They developed a thinking mode of being extrovert， and they are susceptible to novelties. They are inclined to be mobile， adventurous， and aggressive. They value freedom， liberation， and individualism. The reason why “hurting the feelings of Chinese” is used rather often by PRC diplomatic affairs， whereas it is uncommon in the statements of other governments is that it is a generalization in terms of the phrase. From Chinese implicit thought pattern， it is enough to show Chinese people’s anger but never clearly stated which part has been damaged， reputation， dignity or honor. However， in explicit thought pattern of English， people are inclined to be mobile， adventurous， and aggressive. They value freedom， liberation， and individualism. It is just not “enough” to claim “you hurt me” and cries as a baby who lost his favorite toy. What’s more， people value the right and freedom of say， the government in most times can not be the spokesman of everyone. While the diversity exists， how can a generation phrase represent everyone？
Induction vs. Deduction
Induction is a reasoning process in which particular or minor points in an article move towards general or major topic， while deduction is a reasoning process in which general or major topics in an article move towards particular or minor points. With inductive arguments， specific or minor arguments are placed first and then the general statement as a conclusion will be reached， whereas， deductive arguments begins with a general statement or major topic followed by supporting specific statements. The use of the phrase “hurt Chinese people’s feelings” is obviously an inductive thinking way. It is a holistic and synthetic conclusion we draw. Actually both induction and deduction are widely applied in Chinese and English. We do not mean that the inductive patter is either restricted to Chinese （or other Asians） or that it is the only pattern available in Chinese discourse （Scollon， -14-2000）. However， it has been well acknowledged that to certain extent， Chinese prefer induction， while Westerners prefer deduction in interpersonal conversation and written essays.
CONCLUSION Different culture has different thought patterns and language expressive forms. Through the comparison between the English and Chinese thought patterns， this paper finds three reasons in thought patterns. First of all， Chinese prefer the collectivism and the use of “Chinese people”， which shows the unity and massive support from a nation. Secondly， Chinese prefer implicitness instead of explicitness. The use of that phrase will help Chinese people， especially PRC government， “show anger” but not “lose temper”. Thirdly， “hurt Chinese people’s feelings” is a typical inductive expression which reflects Chinese preference of inductive thinking pattern.
References：
[1]Sapir，E.，2002，Language：An introduction to the study of speech.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[2]Whorf，L.B.，1956，Language，thought and reality.Massachusetts： The Technology Press of Massachusetts.
[3]連淑能.论中西思维方式[J].外语与外语教学，2002（2）.
[4]张霞.萨皮尔-沃尔夫假说与语用失误的新解——重新认识中国特色英语[D].武汉：华中师范大学，2004.
【Key words】hurt Chinese people’s feelings； Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis； thought pattern difference
INTRODCTION
The expression “hurts the feelings of the Chinese people” is frequently used in communications from the PRC government. When China feels offended， the Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic response almost invariably contains the words “hurt feelings” to describe the damage done to the Chinese people. Fang Kecheng， a curious Chinese blogger and journalism master’s degree candidate at Peking University， has collected the number of times the Chinese people’s feelings have been hurt and what countries have done it the most. His thesis showed a sharp distinction between the Mao era （1949-1978） when Chinese feelings were hurt only three times， and the reform era （1978-present） when a bar graph he created showed hurt feelings spiking at 11 times in 1989 and 1998 and 12 times in 2000. Besides， Fang went to the online archives of People’s Daily and found that between 1946 and 2006 exactly 21 countries and organizations have hurt the feelings of all 1.3 billion or so Chinese people. Japan was the worst offender， with 58 times beginning in 1985. Apparently this expression is used rather often， whereas it is not common in the statements of other governments. So， its sheer ubiquity makes one wonder：why this obsession with damaged sensitivity？
Plato once said：“I have an idea：while mind is thinking， it is talking to herself”. According to Plato， it is through language that the speaker’s real intention can be known and thinking is talking to oneself， or is a form of monologue. Consequently， without thought， language would be meaningless；without language， thought would have no form and would not be known to others. Enlightened by the relationship between thought and language， this paper aims to investigate the obsession of “hurting the feelings of Chinese people” from the perspective of the thought pattern differences between English and Chinese. THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE
A famous hypothesis is put forward by the American anthropologist-linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf， which is called this notion， is commonly referred to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis contains two levels of meanings：Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativism.
Linguistic determinism refers to the idea that language we use to some extent determines the way in which we view and think about the world around us. The concept has generally been divided into two parts—“strong determinism” and “weak determinism.” Strong determinism is the extreme version of the theory， stating that language actually determines thought， that language and thought are identical. Weak determinism holds the view that thought is merely affected by or influenced by our languages. This version of determinism is widely accepted today. Linguistic relativity refers to the distinctions encoded in one language are unique to that language alone， Thus， speakers of different languages are said to think in different ways. It has made a great sensation in history.
In this paper， the thought pattern differences will be illustrated from three perspectives， respectively， collectivism vs. individualism， implicitness vs. explicitness， obscurity vs. accuracy， in order to explain and understand the emergence and obsession of “hurting Chinese people’s feelings.”
Collectivism vs. Individualism
Individualism refers to loosely knit social networks. People in individual cultures define themselves primarily as independent individuals and make their primary commitment for themselves. People in this culture focus their goals exclusively on self-interest. In the contrast， collectivism is characterized by individuals who subordinate their personal goals to the goals of some collectives. In many situations， many people in collectivist cultures have internalized the norms of their collectives so completely that there is no such thing as a distinction between in-group goals and personal goals. Collectivism holds that the group is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. “Hurts Chinese people’s feelings” is frequently used in diplomatic communications from the PRC government. The circumlocution is often used within the government to suggest that a preferred point of view has massive support. To some degree， it implies that somehow the Chinese nation is unified in its outlook and reaction， and prone to the same emotional reaction. However， as time passes， Chinese are ever-more diverse in their opinions， and free to speak them. Implicitness vs. Explicitness
Chinese value implicitness and think expressing themselves too frankly is frivolous. This kind of thinking tendency is introvert. The personality of being introvert makes ancient Chinese people inclined to be “stable and quiet”. They like to express themselves not in a straight-forward way. They developed a thinking mode of being extrovert， and they are susceptible to novelties. They are inclined to be mobile， adventurous， and aggressive. They value freedom， liberation， and individualism. The reason why “hurting the feelings of Chinese” is used rather often by PRC diplomatic affairs， whereas it is uncommon in the statements of other governments is that it is a generalization in terms of the phrase. From Chinese implicit thought pattern， it is enough to show Chinese people’s anger but never clearly stated which part has been damaged， reputation， dignity or honor. However， in explicit thought pattern of English， people are inclined to be mobile， adventurous， and aggressive. They value freedom， liberation， and individualism. It is just not “enough” to claim “you hurt me” and cries as a baby who lost his favorite toy. What’s more， people value the right and freedom of say， the government in most times can not be the spokesman of everyone. While the diversity exists， how can a generation phrase represent everyone？
Induction vs. Deduction
Induction is a reasoning process in which particular or minor points in an article move towards general or major topic， while deduction is a reasoning process in which general or major topics in an article move towards particular or minor points. With inductive arguments， specific or minor arguments are placed first and then the general statement as a conclusion will be reached， whereas， deductive arguments begins with a general statement or major topic followed by supporting specific statements. The use of the phrase “hurt Chinese people’s feelings” is obviously an inductive thinking way. It is a holistic and synthetic conclusion we draw. Actually both induction and deduction are widely applied in Chinese and English. We do not mean that the inductive patter is either restricted to Chinese （or other Asians） or that it is the only pattern available in Chinese discourse （Scollon， -14-2000）. However， it has been well acknowledged that to certain extent， Chinese prefer induction， while Westerners prefer deduction in interpersonal conversation and written essays.
CONCLUSION Different culture has different thought patterns and language expressive forms. Through the comparison between the English and Chinese thought patterns， this paper finds three reasons in thought patterns. First of all， Chinese prefer the collectivism and the use of “Chinese people”， which shows the unity and massive support from a nation. Secondly， Chinese prefer implicitness instead of explicitness. The use of that phrase will help Chinese people， especially PRC government， “show anger” but not “lose temper”. Thirdly， “hurt Chinese people’s feelings” is a typical inductive expression which reflects Chinese preference of inductive thinking pattern.
References：
[1]Sapir，E.，2002，Language：An introduction to the study of speech.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[2]Whorf，L.B.，1956，Language，thought and reality.Massachusetts： The Technology Press of Massachusetts.
[3]連淑能.论中西思维方式[J].外语与外语教学，2002（2）.
[4]张霞.萨皮尔-沃尔夫假说与语用失误的新解——重新认识中国特色英语[D].武汉：华中师范大学，2004.