Forms of written arguments: A comparison between Japan and the United States

Abstract

Studying cultural differences in argument forms helps us understand the nature of communicative problems that inevitably arise in intercultural conflict and negotiation.Although a number of studies have been conducted in the past to examine cultural differences in arguments, we still do not have sufficient evidence to support that cultural groups actually differ in the manners in which they construct arguments. Given the situation, this study empirically examines whether and how cultural groups differ in forms of written arguments. counterparts. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

Perceptions of the Qualities of Written Arguments by Japanese Students

“…Hirokawa and Miyahara's cross-cultural study (1986) provided empirical evidence to support indirect verbal communication styles of Japanese managers as opposed to direct styles of managers from the U.S., a low-context culture. Suzuki (2010) proposed two sets of argument forms as the indicators that measure the extent to which a written argument is direct or indirect: horizontal versus vertical macro-structure and climactic versus anticlimactic macro-structure. Macro-structure means the argument's global organizational pattern (Suzuki, 2006(Suzuki, , 2010(Suzuki, , 2011.…”

“…Suzuki (2010) proposed two sets of argument forms as the indicators that measure the extent to which a written argument is direct or indirect: horizontal versus vertical macro-structure and climactic versus anticlimactic macro-structure. Macro-structure means the argument's global organizational pattern (Suzuki, 2006(Suzuki, , 2010(Suzuki, , 2011. Horizontal macro-structure is composed exclusively of horizontal, or extending and expanding, functions with no support by reasoning for the central claim or the thesis (Suzuki, 2006).…”

“…Their research topics include the preferred types of logic or reasoning (Glenn, Witmeyer, & Stevenson, 1977;Mizutani, 1981;Nakamura, 1964), general attitudes toward argumentation (Becker, 1988), rhetorical choices in making arguments (Johnstone, 1986;Okabe, 1983), and trait argumentativeness (M. S. Kim, Aune, Hunter, H. J. Kim, & J. S. Kim, 2001;Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990). Based on the review of these studies, Suzuki (2010) points out that they are either impressionistic or provide too little information as to how ordinary people from different cultural groups actually differ in the manner in which they construct arguments. To address the issue, she examined the forms of written arguments employed by college students between Japan and the U.S., and found empirical evidence to support the claim that Japanese students are different from the U.S. students in the likelihood of using different forms.…”

“…They maintain, "Verbal interaction styles reflect and embody the affective, moral, and aesthetic patterns of culture" (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988, p. 100). As Suzuki (2010) acknowledges, the first two dimensions are more relevant than the other two to the analysis of argument forms. Because the same is true for analyzing perceived qualities of argument forms, the present study employs the direct-indirect and the elaborate-succinct dimensions of communication styles (See Table 1 for the outline of this study).…”

Historical Comparison Re-considered

“…al. 2010;Droogers 2005;Magun & Rudnev 2010;Merkin & Ramadan 2010;Suzuki 2010). Yet, despite this widespread and inter-disciplinary application, regretfully little attention is paid to this method as such, and it is only occasionally that the potentials and limitations of this strategy receive adequate treatment in social scientific method textbooks.…”